Jump to content

And They're Off!


Donald Trumps
 Share

How would you vote  

117 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 08/27/2020 at 07:00 PM

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Out of the blue said:

Ramsey born and bred. Held a number of AO/EO positions in the CS for many years. Nice enough chap, but no drive or real ability. Perfect MHK candidate.

To be honest I’d be very wary of someone 50 odd who despite appearing to have held fairly senior posts in the public sector for most of their life seems to be living in Anagh Coar. Just suggests lazy or a right sponger to me. I wonder what the appeal of an MHK role is? Even less work for round about the same money perhaps while paying the same £85 a week in rent? 

Edited by Mr Newbie
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr Newbie said:

To be honest I’d be very wary of someone 50 odd who despite appearing to have held fairly senior posts in the public sector for most of their life seems to be living in Anagh Coar. Just suggests lazy or a right sponger to me. I wonder what the appeal of an MHK role is? Even less work for round about the same money perhaps while paying the same £85 a week in rent? 

AO/EO positions aren't 'fairly senior' positions in the civil service, they're junior ones.  The top of the EO salary range is £35,755  and AO starts at £22,937.  So an MHK salary would be a big boost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said:

AO/EO positions aren't 'fairly senior' positions in the civil service, they're junior ones.  The top of the EO salary range is £35,755  and AO starts at £22,937.  So an MHK salary would be a big boost.

Someone who has been in the system forever will be incremented to death and probably well over published scales by now. But it’s hard to understand why someone like that is apparently still in public housing despite having a very secure and relatively well paid public sector job for decades. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Newbie said:

Someone who has been in the system forever will be incremented to death and probably well over published scales by now. But it’s hard to understand why someone like that is apparently still in public housing despite having a very secure and relatively well paid public sector job for decades. 

I am told by someone who knows these things - and who is drinking coffee in my kitchen right now -  that your comment concerning ‘well over the published scales‘ is meaningless. Roger Mexico has indicated the maximum salary of the Executive Officer pay scale. Annual increments take someone to that level, not beyond it. And once you are at the top of your pay scale, that’s it. If Pinkerton is an EO, or being paid on that scale, his maximum earnings cannot be more than £35,755. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

I am told by someone who knows these things - and who is drinking coffee in my kitchen right now -  that your comment concerning ‘well over the published scales‘ is meaningless. Roger Mexico has indicated the maximum salary of the Executive Officer pay scale. Annual increments take someone to that level, not beyond it. And once you are at the top of your pay scale, that’s it. If Pinkerton is an EO, or being paid on that scale, his maximum earnings cannot be more than £35,755. 

So you’re saying that once they get to a certain salary level somebody actually says “sorry mate you can’t have an inflationary pay increase this year like everyone else as you’re over the maximum scale”. I seriously doubt that’s even legal. Or that they don’t find a slightly different job for them that then re-sets the level if that ever happened. 

Edited by Mr Newbie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mr Newbie said:

So you’re saying that once they get to a certain salary level somebody actually says “sorry mate you can’t have an inflationary pay increase this year as you’re over the maximum scale”. I seriously doubt that’s even legal. Or that they don’t find a slightly different job for them that re-sets the level. 

You originally referred to increments on the EO pay scale. Now you’re referring to annual pay awards affecting all the civil service. Make your fucking mind up.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

You originally referred to increments on the EO pay scale. Now you’re referring to annual pay awards affecting all the civil service. Make your fucking mind up.

No I wasn’t I was referring to the fact that many people who have been in government for years and years will have banked a considerable number of incremental increases over 20 plus years as well as promotional increases in relation to their scale and in some cases those increments (which are guaranteed for all) will put long termers over the published scales. As I said you don't just get to a certain level of pay over the years and they say “You can’t have any more inflationary pay increases because that means you’ll earn too much” 

If the pay award this year is 2% surely your going to get that 2% whether you’re technically over the scale or not? 

Edited by Mr Newbie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Newbie said:

No I wasn’t I was referring to the fact that many people who have been in government for years and years will have banked a considerable number of incremental increases over 20 plus years as well as promotional increases in relation to their scale and in some cases those increments (which are guaranteed for all) will put long termers over the published scales. As I said you don't just get to a certain level of pay over the years and they say “You can’t have any more inflationary pay increases because that means you’ll earn too much”  

Apples and oranges pal.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Mr Newbie said:

So you’re saying that once they get to a certain salary level somebody actually says “sorry mate you can’t have an inflationary pay increase this year like everyone else as you’re over the maximum scale”. I seriously doubt that’s even legal. Or that they don’t find a slightly different job for them that then re-sets the level if that ever happened. 

No because the pay scales are what actually increase with annual pay settlements.  So an individual is at the top of one, they will get the inflation-related increase but nothing more, unless they get promoted to a higher grade (HEO or whatever).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roger Mexico said:

No because the pay scales are what actually increase with annual pay settlements.  So an individual is at the top of one, they will get the inflation-related increase but nothing more, unless they get promoted to a higher grade (HEO or whatever).

Don’t introduce clarity and logic into Mr. Newbie’s fluid world Roger, you’ll spoil things.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Newbie said:

No I wasn’t I was referring to the fact that many people who have been in government for years and years will have banked a considerable number of incremental increases over 20 plus years as well as promotional increases in relation to their scale and in some cases those increments (which are guaranteed for all) will put long termers over the published scales. As I said you don't just get to a certain level of pay over the years and they say “You can’t have any more inflationary pay increases because that means you’ll earn too much” 

If the pay award this year is 2% surely your going to get that 2% whether you’re technically over the scale or not? 

Incremental increases are for a max of 5 or 6 years, the other increases are inflation rises. But you are correct that somebody earning decent  money should be paying rent in the private sector, not sucking the teat of the taxpayer and living in subsidised housing. I can never understand why MHKs can’t grow some balls and rectify this massive injustice. I could probably name more than three people who earned mor3 than £60,,000 pa and have retired on six figure lump sums , yet still live in so called “ social housing”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

Incremental increases are for a max of 5 or 6 years, the other increases are inflation rises. But you are correct that somebody earning decent  money should be paying rent in the private sector, not sucking the teat of the taxpayer and living in subsidised housing. I can never understand why MHKs can’t grow some balls and rectify this massive injustice. I could probably name more than three people who earned mor3 than £60,,000 pa and have retired on six figure lump sums , yet still live in so called “ social housing”.

Didn't a certain mhk or councillor run a funeral business from Pulrose mansion?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...