Thetownend.com

This is the basic problem...Swindon now has a low wage economy, whereby most people's earnings are tied up in paying high rates for basics like food, power, transport and housing.

This trend has been getting steadily worse over the recent past....so doesn't help STFC.

Justin Tomlinson though, thinks it's OK

  :)

Well said Reg, the people running the country are shielded from the problems - or don't even get out of London to see it for themselves!!  NHS staff not even getting the 1% pay rise they were promised just about sums up how the government think about the poor and low-waged!

Playing devil's advocate, becausein an ideal world nurses would be on 100k, but IMO it shows how much the country is stuffed financially.

It was claimed today that the NHS trusts would have to sack thousands of nurses over the next two years just to cover 1%. How much of a pinch of salt you take that with is another matter.

I had £300 earmarked for 2 x 8-match tickets until the front bushes, 2 tyres and rear shocks needed to be replaced.

It's £176 for the tyres FFS!

Absolute bullshit. All public sector pay is frozen at 1%... except the MPs who are giving themselves 9%.

Except 50%+ of NHS workers who automatically get a 3% incremental annual rise anyway....

Just saying...

Yes in theory!!  They have refused to give the majority of NHS staff the 1% they were entitled to!!  The upper grades in the NHS are getting an increase, it is the staff on the wards etc. who are not going to get it!!  As for saying they cannot afford to pay it didn't Cameron tell the people of Somerset there was plenty of money to pay for the flood damage etc. - some fo the farmers have still not got all they were promised!!  The rich get richer, the poor just have to soldier on and suffer!!

Public sector staff should get an 8 match package instead of a pay rise.

If you can prove this, I'm listening. As far as I'm aware public sector workers haven't had the standard incremental rises for at least 4 years now. Maybe that's just where I work though.

It's been on the news all day chief.

It might be 45% though. That was the government's justification, another 1% on top was unaffordable. Those who don't get the 3% get 1%.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29560083

Good for them. Still below inflation though so actually a pay cut.

Well it's not actually a pay cut though is it? The government haven't said they're reducing their wages by x% have they? They've just said we can't afford to give you more.

Yeah, but technically Jayo's right. Anything below inflation is a pay cut. In real terms you're money is worth less than it would have been a year ago if everything else has risen more than your wage increase.

Yeah but technically it's not a pay cut is it? Practically it may be but technically it's not.

If you want to be pedantic then yes. My main point remains.

But your point remains incorrect then doesn't it?

So technically it's a pay increase but effectively it's a pay cut. Therefore in a period of deflation any technical pay cut less than the rate of deflation is effectively a pay increase.

Rethink required...

I spoke to Jason in the shop today and he said about 120 sold so far.

....except MP's don't decide their own pay, it's an independent body which they can't over rule.

At least we're all in it together - FTSE 100 Directors had to settle for just 21% this year

http://news.sky.com/story/1351960/ftse-100-directors-earnings-up-21-percent-in-a-year

I'm not particularly socialist but this bit rankled:

Research by Sky News found the total pay package of the best paid CEO in the FTSE 100 index last year, Sir Martin Sorrell of WPP, equals the combined salaries of 1,403 newly qualified NHS midwives.

I'm fine with some people earning more than others. I just don't understand how that multiplier reaches thousands of times. What can a human even do with that money? Other than buy a football club...

Count it and make others peoples lives a fucking misery

thank God MPs can overrule the independent pay review body's recommendation of a 1% payrise for midwives etc on the grounds it can't be afforded

Except they didn't. 45% of the NHS staff are at the top of their pay band and are getting a 1% pay rise. The remaining 55% are getting incremental pay rises worth around 3%, the Government decided they shouldn't get another 1% on top of that.

Also worth pointing out that the article Nemo linked to states that for the population as a whole wages dropped 1.6% over the last financial year whilst annual pay growth was just 0.6%. So I'd say the minimum 1% pay rise they're getting, which the rest of us are paying for, is a pretty good deal.

a reasonable opinion, jonny and you are of course right about the increments.

our opinions however have the benefit of being free of charge.

You, me and the rest of us do all pay however for the independent pay review committee's report.  We also all pay for those who commissioned the report at our expense and who then rejected it.

My interest is in the contrast of the poor mites being powerless to also reject their own state sector 9% increase funded by our goodselves.

The independent pay review for MP's was put in place, by MP's, in the way it was so they couldn't be accused of lining their own pockets (following on from the expenses scandal). Yet here they are being blamed for that very thing. Whilst I'm not their biggest fan, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

There is also the matter of scale. These pay rises affect 600 MP's (costing £6m a year, though I believe other changes to their overall package largely negates this) and 600,000 NHS staff (costing at least £180m a year). Without an increase in budget of £180m, a 1% extra pay rise would mean 6,000 NHS staff losing their jobs as their salaries would have to cover it instead.

There are plenty of people that have been hit hard by the recession, losing their jobs, their homes, or having a reduction in their finances, and the poorest are some of those hit hardest. So I have find it hard to have sympathy for NHS staff that are moaning and going on strike as they're only getting a 3% pay rise rather than 4%.

Bloody hell!

Cant this mumbo jumbo go on a different thread?

I guess they'll be hoping for a few more than that, although of course all extra ticket sales are welcome.

I wonder which route Honky is taking to get there? For some obscure reason, I do like going by the Haynes place at Sparkford, on the 303 always strikes me as somehow incongruous that such a place is there....apparently they've now got a motor museum of cars and mbikes there, which might interest some of the TEF petrol heads.

There can't be too many TEF'ers and I include our few ladies, who haven't got an oily fingerprinted Haynes manual or two somewhere about the place.

Important to remember that we've hardly played (if at all?) since the announcement was made. Some will wait for the next home game, some will wait for pay day, others might buy one at/after Christmas.

FFS! The 8 match ticket thread gets derailed by political pedantry, the mods kindly separate the bullshit out over here only for you lot to start talking about the original topic again. Sort yourselves out, TEF!

Rob Edwards sacked by Tranmere!

Somebody isn't listening to PaulD  ;)

If we gave NHS staff a 6 match ticket instead of an 8 match one, do you think they'd strike?

That's pretty standard, to be fair :)

A home game?  What's that? 

My main concern at the moment, other than interesting routes to Yeovil, is that the Convicts are playing in Qatar today....I suspect our 2 boys aren't going to return in the best states, for a trip to neighbouring Somerset.

According to the FIFA report conveniently ignored for the augmentation of various bank balances, playing football any other time than winter there, is likely to be bad for your health.

On Saturdays game (same location) they were playing in 35 degrees. Massa played 61 mins and smith was a sub.

I suppose the Convicts do know their stuff when it comes to the physiology of sport and extreme heat....well let's hope so.

No, because it's PRACTICALLY still a decrease as you've already said yourself.

You fucking muppet...

"let's call the whole thing off....."

Nasty. I'm a correct muppet.

No.

You said that technically it's a pay cut. Technically they've been given a pay rise of between 1% and 3%. That is not technically a fucking pay cut, it's a fucking pay rise.

Stop being a fucking wazzock.

I wonder if anyone actually works out exactly what a 1% pay rise really means for them? For example if you earn £25k a year and do not have a student loan to repay, it’s only going to equate to an extra 65p per working day after deductions; 56p per working day if you have a student loan to repay.

It’s actually not a great deal on an individual basis which makes those not getting an extra 1% a bunch on whiney pricks and takes the piss out of those who don’t get more than 1%.

A pay rise is a pay rise. Cost of living going up does not affect what you earn, it affects what you are able to pay for. I agree with ironside  :( :suicide: (not the bitching though)

It's all semantics. If inflation and the cost of living is rising faster than salary increases then people are going to be worse off. 1% is fucking insulting and doesn't need to be compared to any other groups wage rise to be seen as such.

Nobody seems to have factored in the annual increase in tax allowances etc which effectively gives you a small pay rise as well.

Inflation in September was 1.2% by the way, perhaps Herthab is more on point by using the term ‘cost of living’.

I always measure economic well being in beer tokens....so it goes something like this.  Can I afford to go out say 4 or 5 nights a week, and drink about 4 or 5 pints?  If yes, then all good, if no then  :(

The tax allowance thing would approximate to a pint a week, if not taken up by the rise in other bills.

Yes I did. You then corrected me and said practically it was a pay cut which I agree with. I then stated that in real terms it still classes as a pay decrease due to the cost of living so the point I was alluding to was still correct. Then you started shouting and took it all a little bit too seriously. Chill out.

Except 3% is easily above inflation on all accounts (RPI and CPI). RPI is probably the better measure for cost of living.

1% is below both measures however. But then you could consider the annual allowance increases also contribute too.

CPI is probably the employers choice  :)