Question about Pay Claim

Q.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding this but it seems to me that the response is suggesting that lower paid staff (under 20K?) should get bigger annual increases in salary, than other so called ‘higher’ paid staff (20-50K?) purely because they receive a lower salary. The cost of living increases year on year for everyone, we all work just as hard as anyone else. ‘Higher’ paid staff don’t get paid bigger salaries just for the sake of it - there is a reason behind this, and could be because of levels of responsibility, experience, qualifications etc (not denigrating lower paid staff in any way). Therefore I would not be happy to support a move which seems to suggest that as ‘higher’ paid staff get bigger salaries, it is ok not to give them a pay rise they need / deserve.

A.

The current majority view of the branch committee is that there should be research into the accumulative effect percentage increases have on maintaining differentials between salary points. Maintaining differentials are, as you point out, essential in recruiting, retaining and rewarding staff at various levels. However we don't agree that it is productive for these differentials to broaden, or indeed substantially decrease. We fear year on year percentage offers are having a detrimental effect of broadening differentials in real terms, making it harder for scale 1, 2, 3 and 4 members of UNISON to make ends meet, buy a house, run a car, raise a family, have a social life etc. This is acute in areas of the South East. The branch committee agreed that we want to be consistent in asking for the research, which may demonstrate that there are alternatives to percentages plucked from the air.