9% would be great for me, I have no chance but.
Think ours is 3%. Thanks USS/UCEA ![]()
We got a fixed sum which is about 5% increase for me, plus my allowances will increase since they are a % of my salary so there is that. If I take away my allowances then it would be a 6.5% increase but my allowances are a solid part of my salary so I don’t see them that way.
Oh and £82 a year extra for being in London ![]()
The unions are still negotiating though, so it might go up. But it will be being paid from September regardless, backdated to August. So it can’t go down at least ![]()
My private pensions follow the public sector pension increase but capped at 10%.
I won’t be eligible for state pension for another decade.
Same position as @mikez , even down to pension age as well!
Cannot strike for more pension, so will have to accept whatever rise is granted.
Ooh, I feel like an MP ![]()
Big, fat 0% here - so do please consider yourself lucky with 3%.
We got less that 2%, if I could kick the people in that ivory tower who get paid loads. I’d be at the door 1st in line ![]()
With inflation to hit 18% next year, that means all these rises still represent a pay cut in real terms. Living standards for many are going to suck ![]()
I know what you mean, but also I’m always careful about talking ourselves into accepting lower wages.
I think at this point workers should consider themselves unlucky/hard done by if they aren’t getting at least 7% and are on relatively basic wages. 0% makes you especially ‘unlucky’, it doesn’t mean anyone else should feel great about a real wage cut though.
Indeed anything below that 18% is an effective pay cut, so I don’t see why objecting to, say, 9% is particularly greedy, just realistic.
Unless some serious effort is made to bring inflation down (once we have a government again) then it’s pretty much a death spiral… the 1970s says Hi - and that wasn’t even as bad as we’re heading into.
Turns out I’ve not been paying attention and I got a 3% rise 3 weeks ago and they didn’t say anything.
We all got 3% back in April. Since then I got an additional 5% as I’m acting up into my old boss’s job.
We’re suffering from a huge amount of turnover. Many colleagues have been leaving for 20% pay rises over the last 3-6 months. There seems to be massive demand for accountants.
Needless to say, I’d be straight out the door if something came up.
I’m with Network rail at the moment. Our department (civil engineering design) has probably halfed in size with a combination of voluntary redundancies and people simply leaving. We’ve lost so much expertise. I’ll be off shortly too, been offered a job in the private sector (still working on rail) that pays 18% more! The government will end up paying for this increase anyway as they will have to go to the supply chain since everyone has left!
"The Government " doesn’t have any money ![]()
Well they have a choice really. They either pay for me and my colleagues expertise (private or public sector) or we will be having many more Stonehaven style disasters in the future…
Also just want to add, don’t buy into this nonsense that Network Rail is some backwards industry that is in need of “modernisation”. Obviously some areas need improving but on the whole we are a very technology driven company. We have drones, we have trains that use LiDAr, ultrasound, AI, and cameras to inspect track and ballast, we use remote monitoring of earthwork. We would happily use more of the government would fund it!
I wasn’t disputing the choice of whether “the Government” pays you as network rail or you as private sector I was simply saying that whatever “The Government” spends comes out of somebody’s pocket first.
Tax the rich came the reply lol - they can leave - just as France found out when they put in place punitive tax rates for “the rich” ![]()
On a purely factual basis, it’s incorrect to say that the government doesn’t have money. It does, it has huge amounts in bank accounts that it uses to pay for things.
They also still have plenty of spending power. They are planning tax cuts ffs, even the tories have abandoned the absurd narrative that somehow the government is ‘out of money’ to spend, the argument now is just about whether that money gets spent on tax cuts that benefit the rich, or on workers and the people in need.
I stand corrected , the Government raises most of the money that it spends from taxation or borrowing
maybe “The Government doesn’t have any money” was too simplistic or nuanced a statement when referring to " either way the Government will end up paying "
In actual fact it will be the taxpayer that ends up paying for whatever "the Governments " obligations are that the Government pay for with the taxpayer credit card
As to tax cuts - these will also be paid for by borrowing on the taxpayers credit card - where they will fall is yet to be decided , though I suspect it will be on the less well off rather than “the rich”
As someone who has zero clue about economics, I’m curious:
What would happen if everyone was given a raise that was, say, inflation + 1%.
That is to say if every industry had unions fighting for above inflation wage increases, would this have a negative or positive effect on the economy?
when the product / service gets into the stores the producer / provider will say this is what it cost me, this is the profit I need to make to pay taxes , ( increased ) wages , shipping (increased shipping because they want wages as well) , pension contributions etc etc and my profit to make it worthwhile doing this shit as an SME , therefore this is the cost of my item and the end user will have to pay for it , but the end user will have more money to buy more expensive things , so all is good , and then the end user will say we can’t afford to live because all products have gone up we need more money. The Government will say our public services that “arguably” dont produce anything to sell are also wanting more money …so we need more tax take to provide for the way of life we have become accustomed to ![]()
TLDR - inflationary, welcome to Venezuela