Well the MetO staff have just heard that a derisory pay offer is about to be
imposed.
The offer in no way addresses pay inequalities between sexes, does nothing
to reward loyal, good and hard working staff, does nothing to motivate staff
and does nothing to stem the cut to living standards to some of the best
scientists in the country.

Over the past 10 years Minister after Minister have visited the Met Office
and told staff that they are the "jewel in the UK crown of science", but
where is the reward? A pat on the back and feck all in the pay packet. Well
enough is enough, and the staff are now being balloted on industrial action.
This does not mean an all out strike but probably action short of a strike.
Like mass walkouts, working to rule, refusing to do favours, no applause for
visiting politicians etc etc.

Of course the battle is against the Tory government coalition and not MetO
management. But, .... MetO management have done naff all to help the
situation and now chickens are coming home to roost. The main trade Union in
the Met Office is Prospect and I am still a member of that Union. There are
also a few PCS members too. So I give my support to all staff in their
fight.

This action is likely to be long and protracted and may get nasty if there
is nothing from government. Whether it will affect weather services I'm not
sure. Probably not on the face of it, but you can rest assured that staff
morale there remains at rock bottom and that has implications for quality in
my opinion. There are signs now that because of poor pay good graduates are
leaving and recruiting is getting harder, well Mr Government what will
happen to your jewels then?

Good luck, stick it up 'em where it hurts!

Will
--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

"Eskimo Will" wrote in message ...

snip
=================

Is this special pleading on behalf of UKMO (in which case I don't think the
case has been made) or do you think everyone in the country should get a pay
rise? Do you have the keys to the money-making machine? I certainly don't.
With a public debt that's potentially going to be absolutely ruinous for
future generations, surely any sane person can see the rationale for having
to keep the lid on public expenditure?

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:12:53 -0000
"Eskimo Will" wrote:

The offer in no way addresses pay inequalities between sexes

Not quite sure what you mean by this one, Will. The only pay inequality
I noticed when I first started work for the Met Office was that the
take-home pay of a man was lower than that of a woman of equal grade
and service. That was due to only the male workers paying for
widows-and-orphans benefits. However, that went away with pensions
reorganisation years later.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Mail: 'newsman' not 'newsboy'.
"Minds are like parachutes. They only function when they're open". -
Lord Dewar (1864-1930)

"Graham P Davis" wrote in message
news:20141030132558.501aca2f@home-1...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:12:53 -0000
"Eskimo Will" wrote:

The offer in no way addresses pay inequalities between sexes

Not quite sure what you mean by this one, Will. The only pay inequality
I noticed when I first started work for the Met Office was that the
take-home pay of a man was lower than that of a woman of equal grade
and service. That was due to only the male workers paying for
widows-and-orphans benefits. However, that went away with pensions
reorganisation years later.

There was an exercise done, in 2011 I think, that looked at pay equality and
there are instances of womens and mens pay in the same grade/same length of
service being different (not necessarily women lower). Reasons for this are
complex and possibly stem in part from pay offered on appointment. Pay
inequality is not really a big issue in the MetO, however, as it is an equal
opportunities employer, but staff were promised over 5 years ago that any
unfair inequalities would be sorted. They haven't been. In fact the pay
system is now effectively broken (due to government imposition) and things
are getting worse not better.

Will
--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

I'm trying to work out what impact this will have on the weather.

Are we in for a cold spell as there will be less work being done and less heat generated, or is it all hot air?

On 30/10/2014 13:40, Eskimo Will wrote:

"Graham P Davis" wrote in message
news:20141030132558.501aca2f@home-1...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:12:53 -0000
"Eskimo Will" wrote:

The offer in no way addresses pay inequalities between sexes

Not quite sure what you mean by this one, Will. The only pay inequality
I noticed when I first started work for the Met Office was that the
take-home pay of a man was lower than that of a woman of equal grade
and service. That was due to only the male workers paying for
widows-and-orphans benefits. However, that went away with pensions
reorganisation years later.

There was an exercise done, in 2011 I think, that looked at pay equality
and there are instances of womens and mens pay in the same grade/same
length of service being different (not necessarily women lower). Reasons
for this are complex and possibly stem in part from pay offered on
appointment. Pay inequality is not really a big issue in the MetO,
however, as it is an equal opportunities employer, but staff were
promised over 5 years ago that any unfair inequalities would be sorted.
They haven't been. In fact the pay system is now effectively broken (due
to government imposition) and things are getting worse not better.

Will
Wasn't there also the issue of women taking time off for children (x
years) and coming back to the same pay scale, but men who joined at the
same time had continued up the pay scale (spine) so were getting more
than the women?

"Metman2012" wrote in message
...
On 30/10/2014 13:40, Eskimo Will wrote:

"Graham P Davis" wrote in message
news:20141030132558.501aca2f@home-1...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:12:53 -0000
"Eskimo Will" wrote:

The offer in no way addresses pay inequalities between sexes

Not quite sure what you mean by this one, Will. The only pay inequality
I noticed when I first started work for the Met Office was that the
take-home pay of a man was lower than that of a woman of equal grade
and service. That was due to only the male workers paying for
widows-and-orphans benefits. However, that went away with pensions
reorganisation years later.

There was an exercise done, in 2011 I think, that looked at pay equality
and there are instances of womens and mens pay in the same grade/same
length of service being different (not necessarily women lower). Reasons
for this are complex and possibly stem in part from pay offered on
appointment. Pay inequality is not really a big issue in the MetO,
however, as it is an equal opportunities employer, but staff were
promised over 5 years ago that any unfair inequalities would be sorted.
They haven't been. In fact the pay system is now effectively broken (due
to government imposition) and things are getting worse not better.

Will
Wasn't there also the issue of women taking time off for children (x
years) and coming back to the same pay scale, but men who joined at the
same time had continued up the pay scale (spine) so were getting more than
the women?

Hi Malcolm, that was when we had a pay spine. As you know the idea of role
pay (which came in in 2008) was equal pay for equal work. The aim was for
staff to take circa 4 years (depending on role) to get to the full rate for
the job. But this was scuppered by the then Labour government deeming it as
unaffordable. I'm not kidding, I was in the Union Pay negotiating team at
that time when we thought we were really getting somewhere. But on the day
of the Treasury announcement of "unaffordable" - the HR (official side) pay
team were literally in tears. Months of hard work from both sides gone up in
smoke because of the bleedin Treasury. Now new staff *never* make the rate
for the job because their rises are severly restricted. They are kept on
lower pay despite being competent and doing good work. So in the same team
doing the same quality work one person's pay can be £1000s pounds less than
the other simply because one person has been employed longer (pre 2008).
That is wrong.

But hey, look on the bright side, we are paying off the deficit (or are we?
Seems as big as ever?) caused by greedy ignorant w.. er bankers.

Will
--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

On Thursday, 30 October 2014 14:58:51 UTC, wrote:
"Metman2012" wrote in message
...
On 30/10/2014 13:40, Eskimo Will wrote:

"Graham P Davis" wrote in message
news:20141030132558.501aca2f@home-1...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:12:53 -0000
"Eskimo Will" wrote:

The offer in no way addresses pay inequalities between sexes

Not quite sure what you mean by this one, Will. The only pay inequality
I noticed when I first started work for the Met Office was that the
take-home pay of a man was lower than that of a woman of equal grade
and service. That was due to only the male workers paying for
widows-and-orphans benefits. However, that went away with pensions
reorganisation years later.

There was an exercise done, in 2011 I think, that looked at pay equality
and there are instances of womens and mens pay in the same grade/same
length of service being different (not necessarily women lower). Reasons
for this are complex and possibly stem in part from pay offered on
appointment. Pay inequality is not really a big issue in the MetO,
however, as it is an equal opportunities employer, but staff were
promised over 5 years ago that any unfair inequalities would be sorted..
They haven't been. In fact the pay system is now effectively broken (due
to government imposition) and things are getting worse not better.

Will
Wasn't there also the issue of women taking time off for children (x
years) and coming back to the same pay scale, but men who joined at the
same time had continued up the pay scale (spine) so were getting more than
the women?

Hi Malcolm, that was when we had a pay spine. As you know the idea of role
pay (which came in in 2008) was equal pay for equal work. The aim was for
staff to take circa 4 years (depending on role) to get to the full rate for
the job. But this was scuppered by the then Labour government deeming it as
unaffordable. I'm not kidding, I was in the Union Pay negotiating team at
that time when we thought we were really getting somewhere. But on the day
of the Treasury announcement of "unaffordable" - the HR (official side) pay
team were literally in tears. Months of hard work from both sides gone up in
smoke because of the bleedin Treasury. Now new staff *never* make the rate
for the job because their rises are severly restricted. They are kept on
lower pay despite being competent and doing good work. So in the same team
doing the same quality work one person's pay can be £1000s pounds less than
the other simply because one person has been employed longer (pre 2008).
That is wrong.

But hey, look on the bright side, we are paying off the deficit (or are we?
Seems as big as ever?) caused by greedy ignorant w.. er bankers.

Will
--
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm
Will Hand (Haytor, Devon, 1017 feet asl)
---------------------------------------------

How does the kill file work for that then?
Not that I am interested.

On 30/10/2014 14:58, Eskimo Will wrote:

"Metman2012" wrote in message
...
On 30/10/2014 13:40, Eskimo Will wrote:

"Graham P Davis" wrote in message
news:20141030132558.501aca2f@home-1...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 12:12:53 -0000
"Eskimo Will" wrote:

The offer in no way addresses pay inequalities between sexes

Not quite sure what you mean by this one, Will. The only pay inequality
I noticed when I first started work for the Met Office was that the
take-home pay of a man was lower than that of a woman of equal grade
and service. That was due to only the male workers paying for
widows-and-orphans benefits. However, that went away with pensions
reorganisation years later.

There was an exercise done, in 2011 I think, that looked at pay equality
and there are instances of womens and mens pay in the same grade/same
length of service being different (not necessarily women lower). Reasons
for this are complex and possibly stem in part from pay offered on
appointment. Pay inequality is not really a big issue in the MetO,
however, as it is an equal opportunities employer, but staff were
promised over 5 years ago that any unfair inequalities would be sorted.
They haven't been. In fact the pay system is now effectively broken (due
to government imposition) and things are getting worse not better.

Will
Wasn't there also the issue of women taking time off for children (x
years) and coming back to the same pay scale, but men who joined at
the same time had continued up the pay scale (spine) so were getting
more than the women?

Hi Malcolm, that was when we had a pay spine. As you know the idea of
role pay (which came in in 2008) was equal pay for equal work. The aim
was for staff to take circa 4 years (depending on role) to get to the
full rate for the job. But this was scuppered by the then Labour
government deeming it as unaffordable. I'm not kidding, I was in the
Union Pay negotiating team at that time when we thought we were really
getting somewhere. But on the day of the Treasury announcement of
"unaffordable" - the HR (official side) pay team were literally in
tears. Months of hard work from both sides gone up in smoke because of
the bleedin Treasury. Now new staff *never* make the rate for the job
because their rises are severly restricted. They are kept on lower pay
despite being competent and doing good work. So in the same team doing
the same quality work one person's pay can be £1000s pounds less than
the other simply because one person has been employed longer (pre 2008).
That is wrong.

But hey, look on the bright side, we are paying off the deficit (or are
we? Seems as big as ever?) caused by greedy ignorant w.. er bankers.

Will
Thanks Will for the explanation. I was aware there's no spine now, but
the repercussions of the old system were still with us when I was there
being overpaid because I was old (an HR person said that older staff
were overpaid because they were no longer able to offer value to the
organisation). Still, we're all in it together aren't we - along with
MPs, bankers et al.

Oops, we're retired, we're alright....

General wrote:
"Eskimo Will" wrote in message ...

snip
=================

Is this special pleading on behalf of UKMO (in which case I don't think
the case has been made) or do you think everyone in the country should
get a pay rise? Do you have the keys to the money-making machine? I
certainly don't. With a public debt that's potentially going to be
absolutely ruinous for future generations, surely any sane person can
see the rationale for having to keep the lid on public expenditure?
-----------------------------------------------------
No more than the lid on private jobs many of whom have seen their
salaries rocket or they don't pay their full quota of tax if they are
tradesmen or self employed. Not an option as a PAYE public sector
worker. Not only are public sector workers underpaid they are
undervalued. However it seems to be the lot in life of a Scientist even
in the private and utility sector - they are desperately underpaid for
the studying they have had to do and the level of expertise required to
do their job. Somewhere on at least par with a Lawyer or Accountant but
they will only get a fraction of their salary.
Dave