Uncivil servants

[XFool]

Can't blame it all on the EU anymore (but there's still the ECHR), so it must be somebody elses turn now:

The Rwanda plan is failing – so watch as our cowardly government blames the civil service

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/10/rwanda-plan-failing-civil-service-blame

Ministers are spending £290m of taxpayers’ money on a scheme that is yet to deliver. It’s our job as public servants to point out flaws in their plans
Dave Penman is general secretary of the FDA union

"It was not always inevitable that a policy going badly wrong would lead to blame falling on the civil service. Unfortunately, it is increasingly becoming so. The more desperate the political situation, the more likely it is that the government will find an individual or department to blame. All the better because they can’t answer back."

[XFool]

I agree, and yet I constantly here people arguing that workers should be paid a "living wage" *. As if what they need, or think they need, is a valid driver of compensation.

Quite so. Ye Gods man! Whatever next? We can't afford to let these blighters have enough to live on, can we? Where would it all end...


* Actually, I don't like the expression 'Living Wage' myself.

[mc2fool]

It seems like such a contrived argument to suggest that the rate an employer will pay for an employee's normal work depends on what that employee does outside of their employment.
Otherwise you'd compensate folk for extra petrol if they travel further... or adjust if they use a season ticket rather than buying singles on the day?

You may think of people travelling to work as being "outside of their employment" but actually in some areas I gather it's quite common for the company to cover the commuting costs of employees. I used to know a lady that worked as a PA for, over the years, several (usually American) finance companies (banks & insurers) in the City of London and they always paid for her season tickets to get into work and back. If she'd had a car they'd have paid for her petrol and parking. Standard practice I understand.

In the UK, a travel allowance is a form of financial assistance provided by employers to employees to cover their commuting costs. This allowance helps employees offset the expenses incurred while traveling between their residence and their workplace.

Here's how a travel allowance typically works in the UK:

• Employer decision: The provision of a travel allowance is at the discretion of the employer. It's not a mandatory benefit and is usually offered as an incentive to attract and retain employees.
  
• Negotiation and agreement: If an employer offers a travel allowance, the terms are usually negotiated and agreed upon between the employer and the employee. This can include the amount of the allowance, the frequency of payment and any specific conditions.
  
• Commute distance: The travel allowance may be influenced by the distance the employee has to travel to reach their workplace. Longer distances often result in higher allowance amounts.
• ...

https://www.personio.com/hr-lexicon/travel-allowance/

[EverybodyKnows]

It seems like such a contrived argument to suggest that the rate an employer will pay for an employee's normal work depends on what that employee does outside of their employment.

Otherwise you'd compensate folk for extra petrol if they travel further... or adjust if they use a season ticket rather than buying singles on the day?
If you've agreed remuneration and the job can be performed acceptably, fulfilling the contract, then surely that's all there is to it. If they are needed on site then that forms part of the contract and everyone is clear what's going on.

You're paying the employee for their work not their life.

I agree, and yet I constantly here people arguing that workers should be paid a "living wage". As if what they need, or think they need, is a valid driver of compensation.

Some people do not want to use services from a company that takes advantage to pay people below a certain pay point. That’s a business decision to make by the employer to meet that preference or not.

[scrumpyjack]

You may think of people travelling to work as being "outside of their employment" but actually in some areas I gather it's quite common for the company to cover the commuting costs of employees. I used to know a lady that worked as a PA for, over the years, several (usually American) finance companies (banks & insurers) in the City of London and they always paid for her season tickets to get into work and back. If she'd had a car they'd have paid for her petrol and parking. Standard practice I understand.

[i]In the UK, a travel allowance is a form of financial assistance provided by employers to employees to cover their commuting costs. This allowance helps employees offset the expenses incurred while traveling between their residence and their workplace.

I trust they declared it as a taxable benefit. Such payments are certainly taxable.

[Lootman]

I agree, and yet I constantly here people arguing that workers should be paid a "living wage". As if what they need, or think they need, is a valid driver of compensation.

Some people do not want to use services from a company that takes advantage to pay people below a certain pay point. That’s a business decision to make by the employer to meet that preference or not.

I do not know many people who research compensation levels before buying a product or service. Or who are willing to pay more for an item solely on that basis.

And for those who do, do they never buy imports from low-wage economies overseas?

[mc2fool]

You may think of people travelling to work as being "outside of their employment" but actually in some areas I gather it's quite common for the company to cover the commuting costs of employees. I used to know a lady that worked as a PA for, over the years, several (usually American) finance companies (banks & insurers) in the City of London and they always paid for her season tickets to get into work and back. If she'd had a car they'd have paid for her petrol and parking. Standard practice I understand.

[i]In the UK, a travel allowance is a form of financial assistance provided by employers to employees to cover their commuting costs. This allowance helps employees offset the expenses incurred while traveling between their residence and their workplace.

I trust they declared it as a taxable benefit. Such payments are certainly taxable.

Included in her remuneration and taxed via PAYE.

[kempiejon]

I used to work for an events company who paid me set day rate, I knew others who worked for the same company and were paid a lower day rate but could submit travel expenses.

A chum of mine has recently changed employers, the company offered them all WFH or blended, with a salary bump of £2.5k bump if they would commit to attending the office at least 2 days per week. The season ticket is covered by the extra pay with a little bit over and they selected the occasionally present option.

[JohnB]

London Weighting was a key feature of the package of civil servants in the Capital. I expect many private firms with rigid pay grades did the same. I guess now each manager makes an offer....

[didds]

You're paying the employee for their work not their life.

I been told by office workers that commute that they'd miss not working in the office because they would "miss the social life" . So employers ARE paying for people's social lives then?

[servodude]

It seems like such a contrived argument to suggest that the rate an employer will pay for an employee's normal work depends on what that employee does outside of their employment.
Otherwise you'd compensate folk for extra petrol if they travel further... or adjust if they use a season ticket rather than buying singles on the day?

You may think of people travelling to work as being "outside of their employment" but actually in some areas I gather it's quite common for the company to cover the commuting costs of employees. I used to know a lady that worked as a PA for, over the years, several (usually American) finance companies (banks & insurers) in the City of London and they always paid for her season tickets to get into work and back. If she'd had a car they'd have paid for her petrol and parking. Standard practice I understand.

In the UK, a travel allowance is a form of financial assistance provided by employers to employees to cover their commuting costs. This allowance helps employees offset the expenses incurred while traveling between their residence and their workplace.

Here's how a travel allowance typically works in the UK:

• Employer decision: The provision of a travel allowance is at the discretion of the employer. It's not a mandatory benefit and is usually offered as an incentive to attract and retain employees.
  
• Negotiation and agreement: If an employer offers a travel allowance, the terms are usually negotiated and agreed upon between the employer and the employee. This can include the amount of the allowance, the frequency of payment and any specific conditions.
  
• Commute distance: The travel allowance may be influenced by the distance the employee has to travel to reach their workplace. Longer distances often result in higher allowance amounts.
• ...

https://www.personio.com/hr-lexicon/travel-allowance/

That's all nice and transparent and part of the contract of work - I've done it myself for contract work (if I can do it from here but you want me on site - it's my normal rate + expenses + loading)

It's a very different thing to look at what someone is being paid as their base rate and decide you can push it down because they don't spend it how you think they ought

[servodude]

You're paying the employee for their work not their life.

I been told by office workers that commute that they'd miss not working in the office because they would "miss the social life" . So employers ARE paying for people's social lives then?

...but if your office isn't in Downing St?

[didds]

I been told by office workers that commute that they'd miss not working in the office because they would "miss the social life" . So employers ARE paying for people's social lives then?

...but if your office isn't in Downing St?

being vaguely boring to a humorous reply ~;-)

It was in a shitty office in a crappy business park in Kingswood, East Bristol.

For an even crapper, shittier company.

[servodude]

...but if your office isn't in Downing St?

being vaguely boring to a humorous reply ~;-)

It was in a shitty office in a crappy business park in Kingswood, East Bristol.

For an even crapper, shittier company.

..and they miss it?

Have the Samaritans number ready for them next time

[SimonS]

You're paying the employee for their work not their life.

Quite, the employee will be making the decision whether the amount one is offering is sufficient to cover their expenditure.

Of course if the employer's future offers fall short of the employees expectations then they (in the UK) are allowed to enter into negotiation to redress the matter and withdraw their labour until their demands are met or until they move to another employer .

There was a popularity for a while for the Ricardo (Brazil)version of employment where the employee set their own wage but it was dependant on the employee actually understanding the accounts of the company; the firm giving education on the matter; and initially it was found that employees asked for less than the employer would have offered. Inevitably it was subsequently abused to the point of failure.

Indirectly the employer is paying to cover the employees lifestyle while calculating whether the contribution of the employee warrants the expenditure.

[Maroochydore]

I agree, and yet I constantly here people arguing that workers should be paid a "living wage" *.

Interesting but why just workers? The 'living wage' for a 40 hour week is considerably higher than the State Pension.

If the retired are supposed to live on the Pension rate why can't the workers?

So what is the 'correct' rate? The government set them both so why the disparity?

[swill453]

I agree, and yet I constantly here people arguing that workers should be paid a "living wage" *.

Interesting but why just workers? The 'living wage' for a 40 hour week is considerably higher than the State Pension.

If the retired are supposed to live on the Pension rate why can't the workers?

So what is the 'correct' rate? The government set them both so why the disparity?

Paying for work-related costs such as commuting etc.?

Bringing up a family?

Scott.

[didds]

If the retired are supposed to live on the Pension rate why can't the workers?
?

pensioners don't need workplace appropriate attire that isn't worn socially?
pensioners don't have commuting costs?

Not that that IMO is an excuse for paying pensions < "living wage" notwithstanding the above anyway.
A bit like (possible derail here) 73% [1] of the UK earning less than the govt decreed income level to immigrate.

[1] ISTR that figure from a report read online somewhere (not the Sun!)

didds

[88V8]

A bit like (possible derail here) 73% [1] of the UK earning less than the govt decreed income level to immigrate.
[1] ISTR that figure from a report read online somewhere (not the Sun!)

Heard it quoted on R4 so seems to be correct.

V8

[brightncheerful]

A civil servant, it must be remembered, can find a problem to every solution.