UK gov universal pay increase


mackem35

Winger
With the nurses, teachers, firefighters all going on strike over pay would a universal pay award system work. So if the MPs get 8% everybody else gets the same. Same for the pensions, we have a state pension so why not a state workers scheme. Maybe allowances for emergency workers / the military but all, the overhead of numerous schemes could be reduced. No idea if this has ever been thought about but thought the smb would know. Currently the teachers get x, the firefighters y, the nurses z surely if they all got whatever the need to have numerous pay negotiations would not be needed. Effectively everybody works for uk gov so can't see why it could not work. End of the day all paid for via the taxpayer.
 
Probably won't happen as it means whenever there's a pay dispute, then you end up with a general strike rather than just 1 or 2 professions at a time.
 
With the nurses, teachers, firefighters all going on strike over pay would a universal pay award system work. So if the MPs get 8% everybody else gets the same. Same for the pensions, we have a state pension so why not a state workers scheme. Maybe allowances for emergency workers / the military but all, the overhead of numerous schemes could be reduced. No idea if this has ever been thought about but thought the smb would know. Currently the teachers get x, the firefighters y, the nurses z surely if they all got whatever the need to have numerous pay negotiations would not be needed. Effectively everybody works for uk gov so can't see why it could not work. End of the day all paid for via the taxpayer.

Government would just cut jobs every year to pay for it or outsource the jobs to the private sector so that they wouldn't be covered by your universal scheme.
 
I’ve said it before, public sector pay should just be in line with inflation.
Would you have a cap on it though (either end) as I cant imagine many would happily take a wage cut or even a 1% pay rise, even if things were going well and then the opposite if things went even worse could we afford (as a country) to give 20% increases if things hit the fan.

MPs pay should just be the average of all civil service increases, if they can't agree with the workers then they don't get one.
 
Would you have a cap on it though (either end) as I cant imagine many would happily take a wage cut or even a 1% pay rise, even if things were going well and then the opposite if things went even worse could we afford (as a country) to give 20% increases if things hit the fan.

MPs pay should just be the average of all civil service increases, if they can't agree with the workers then they don't get one.
In the last 60 years inflation has been positive so there would only have been pay rises no pay cuts.

Agree MPs should be treated the same.
 
Would you have a cap on it though (either end) as I cant imagine many would happily take a wage cut or even a 1% pay rise, even if things were going well and then the opposite if things went even worse could we afford (as a country) to give 20% increases if things hit the fan.

MPs pay should just be the average of all civil service increases, if they can't agree with the workers then they don't get one.
I wouldn’t cap it.

Also, I think you’re forgetting that 13 years ago saw the start of 0% pay rises followed by 1% pay rises, so the public sector have been through that.

I have no gripes with MPs pay matching inflation, just so long as everyone else gets that.

How can it be determined that one service receives a fixed amount of £x but then another service gets 3%. It just makes no sense.
 
With the nurses, teachers, firefighters all going on strike over pay would a universal pay award system work. So if the MPs get 8% everybody else gets the same. Same for the pensions, we have a state pension so why not a state workers scheme. Maybe allowances for emergency workers / the military but all, the overhead of numerous schemes could be reduced. No idea if this has ever been thought about but thought the smb would know. Currently the teachers get x, the firefighters y, the nurses z surely if they all got whatever the need to have numerous pay negotiations would not be needed. Effectively everybody works for uk gov so can't see why it could not work. End of the day all paid for via the taxpayer.
So everyone gets a pay rise and then taxes rise.

Am I better off?
 
With the nurses, teachers, firefighters all going on strike over pay would a universal pay award system work. So if the MPs get 8% everybody else gets the same. Same for the pensions, we have a state pension so why not a state workers scheme. Maybe allowances for emergency workers / the military but all, the overhead of numerous schemes could be reduced. No idea if this has ever been thought about but thought the smb would know. Currently the teachers get x, the firefighters y, the nurses z surely if they all got whatever the need to have numerous pay negotiations would not be needed. Effectively everybody works for uk gov so can't see why it could not work. End of the day all paid for via the taxpayer.
Nurses wanting 19% pay rise aren't they, so would go on strike still based on this offer.
So everyone gets a pay rise and then taxes rise.

Am I better off?
Inflation would rise too. Anyone not getting a pay rise would be hammered further
 
Last edited:
In the last 60 years inflation has been positive so there would only have been pay rises no pay cuts.

Agree MPs should be treated the same.
Ill be honest I done a quick google and saw 1 year when it was -0.5, could have been reading it wrong, also I think just matching inflation is probably wrong, as then you are no better off, if we have inflation plus 1% capped at a certain amount I'd see that as acceptable. Thing is though its not about the wage, well it is but its everything else that would just get knocked down and the media would run the story that they are refusing a x% pay increase whilst Jimmy at Pets at Home hasn't had an increase in 4 years.
 
I opened this thread thinking it was regarding a universal credit benefit increase, obviously misread but will offer a potentially contravertial opinion anyway.

As far as I'm aware, there has been no increase in universal credit entitlement in the last 3 or 4 years, barring the temporary uplift of £20 per week which was revoked a while ago. I did a calculation a few weeks back just on the off chance I found myself out of work and my entitlement as a 30 year old single male in rented accommodation was £670pcm. I'm in council accommodation so fortunately me rent is low. Let me do a quick breakdown of costs:

330 rent
100 Council tax
180 energy costs
35 water
26 broadband
29 phone contract
120 food.

This comes to roughly £800pcm for absolute essentials.

These are my absolute costs / expenses per month and there are a few more what would be considered "luxuries". My question is this, how on earth can someone who is out of work afford to live in the current cost of living crisis? The universal credit benefit amount needs to be increased significantly to allow the some of the lost vulnerable / worse off citizens to have any decent opportunity of life.

I know there's generally hatred towards those claiming benefits but in this day and age there are various amounts of circumstances that lead to people really having no other choice. I for one am appalled at the way in which this government have continuously treated the worse off in out society.
 
Last edited:
How can it be determined that one service receives a fixed amount of £x but then another service gets 3%. It just makes no sense.

Different services have different budgets. if one service has improved their performance more than another then maybe they deserve a higher rise. Maybe one has a more of a problem recruiting than others or faces tougher competition from the private sector. A flat rate across the board will ignore a lot of factors.
 
Ill be honest I done a quick google and saw 1 year when it was -0.5, could have been reading it wrong, also I think just matching inflation is probably wrong, as then you are no better off, if we have inflation plus 1% capped at a certain amount I'd see that as acceptable. Thing is though its not about the wage, well it is but its everything else that would just get knocked down and the media would run the story that they are refusing a x% pay increase whilst Jimmy at Pets at Home hasn't had an increase in 4 years.
Think matching inflation is right. Ultimately this is about ensuring people are not worse off due to inflation, something the government is accountable for managing.

Above inflation would suggest their role has become worth more. If this is the case pay could be increased on that basis, or if the opposite if that was the case.
 

Back
Top