Tuesday, 7 April 2015

Consultation on prospective pay claim for 2016/17

We should welcome the move by our Head of Local Government and Service Group Executive to bring pay claim discussions earlier, so that we can give employers a deadline to respond, which allows us (if the employers fail to meet our claim) to put in place a serious strategy to win our claim and time to convince our members that we can win, and achieve a strong ballot for such a strategy.


So consulting now our members this early this year (and hopefully every year) should mean that we know what the employers response is by the end of the summer, unlike last year where employers hadnt made an offer just a month before its implementation date.

But what should such a claim be, when we have just held a special conference successfully winning a strategy of re-submitting a claim for the present year from April 2015.

So with this in mind, the proposal from the leadership: "Deletion of NJC pay points which fall below the level of the Living Wage - £7.88 per hour (scp 6-10) - and a flat rate increase of £1 per hour on all other pay points" leads us with some problems.

If we are successful in this years 2015-16 pay campaign, which we must go into every pay dispute intending to win it for our members, then would the claim remain for a flat rate £1 per hour increase?
Or should we propose that 2016-17 claim should be removal of the next 5 spinal column points, rather than naming the specific ones.

Or should we in reality see the time is right for a flat rate starting salary of £10 per hour? If Labour are fighting this election with a commitment to bringing the minimum wage (note not the Living Wage) to £8 per hour by the end of the parliament, then our aim for our members must be greater than £7.88, or even £8.88 an hour, especially since we are talking about our claim for 2016/17.

At local government worker blog, we'd be keen to hear what other branches, regions and activists are proposing in the consultation which is taking place in the next 2 weeks.

Please post any comments below

No comments:

Post a comment