No it wasn’t. It was expressly for the NHS for the first two years to help clear Covid related backlogs and then it is meant to be for social care. Whether there will be sufficient visible that it is being used for that is another matter although my understanding is that from the third year the 1.5% will be separately listed on your payslip as a Social Care Levy.
Could you clarify please?
Is that 2.5% for the "efficiencies" on top of the previously offered 2%? I thought the previous offer was 2+1% so it wouldn't make sense for even less to be offered.
I haven’t got the precise details but it is aimed at care for the elderly etc. We all hear about the greater burdens on Social Care, especially as the proportion of elderly increases and people live longer. Successive governments have all failed to grasp the nettle until now. Whether it is the right way to do it is another matter (I’m not saying it is or isn’t) but at least something had been done at last, although the timing probably couldn’t be worse, hence the changes to the threshold from 6th July which shifts the balance more towards higher earners. Those on £30k or less will actually pay less than they did before the April increase. I’ve no idea of your salary, and neither should I, but many lower earners will be better off. But that, of course, is totally separate to any pay negotiations. I only made my original post because there seemed to be a lot of heat on the forum and insufficient fact.
This whole dispute is getting hard to follow but wasn't the 2% + 1% the Network Rail offer? The offer described above obviously relates to TOC employees.
I would have thought that even the government, as hare-brained as it is, would know that offering 0.5% less - for a deal that involves far greater concessions on T&Cs - is utterly untenable.
I suspect most of that is to enable the start of negotiations on DCO/Sundays/ticket offices etc, not to endorse full implementation which has not yet been defined.
That prompts a question from me I’ve been meaning to ask. Normally RMT would have to negotiate with individual TOCs. Is this the case in this dispute or are they negotiating with the RDG who are working to collectively represent the TOCs? If the latter is the case it drives a coach and horses through government arguments that the RMT and companies must negotiate and it’s not for them. For one, I don’t think Government should be at the table but they need to come clean and say “this is the envelope the industry had to work in, this is what the government is prepared to underwrite”. Visibility and transparency, not smoke and mirrors.
But Committed sundays are already in the T's & C's at many TOC's and we still have sunday resourcing issues , one of the big issues in this dispute and with this offer is that it apears the DFT really do not have any operational understanding .
If I'm honest in my opinion the redundancy issue has been completely mishandled. Back when voluntary severance was floated as an option, I know several ticket office staff who put in an application for it. Ay my TOC not a single ticket office employee was granted severance with the reason given being that current staffing levels were lower than required in their plans going forwards. Fast forward a few months and now the government is throwing around ideas such as closure of all offices and compulsory redundancies.
40 hours!!!! Certainly not. It would have to be within 35 if incorporated into the working week.
This is where the pure confusion lies. Go back to this thread for posts made Monday last week, where someone posted the actual offer on the forum as a PDF.
I went on to the which site earlier. I'm paying roughly an extra £47 every four weeks than last year. When the new ni limit hits in July , I will be around £29 ish better off than since April . But still £18 worse than last year.
That's just awful. The idea of only the driver on a train (obviously the case in some tocs) always makes me feel a little uncomfortable, in terms of safety, though I guess most wouldn't notice if they changed to customer reps instead.
Fire and rehire of Guards…? There’s no way RMT would accept that !
So how does it work, regards the extra five hours. Let's say a guard is on 40k and they get a 3% raise. That's an extra £1200 a year. The 40k works out at £22 an hour over a 35 hour week and so if you paid them £22 times five, that's £110 a week or around £5700 a year. Or would they get £5700 and 3% .
My attempt at working it out was £750-£900 annually.
Yes, that’s the point I was trying to get over. For anyone below certain earnings they will be better off than the 2021/22 tax year but above a certain level it will be more than 2021/22 but not as bad as the initial increase we’ve just had. Lower earners will gain, higher earners will not but will “enjoy” a lower level of increase than if the threshold had not been raised. There is often a clamour for “the better off should pay more” and this change does that. Although I’m not overly happy that I will still be paying more NI than I was last year I take it on the chin in the knowledge that those on lower salaries, with less disposable income (if any at all!) will benefit.
Better or worse? If worse, you must either be on a very good salary or you’ve done it wrong. If better off, tell us the secret!
I probably got it hopelessly wrong haha. Oh well. Loving Diana at Glasto.
I know, it was a thinly veiled dig!
Eh? There are plenty of jobs up North.