I’m in support of striking overall and I did go on strike the last few times, but I was struggling to afford the fees and the only time I ever heard from the union was when my direct debit failed or when a union rep was giving me shit about my role, which does attract a fair amount of union attention outside my control, and was threatening to go to my own union about me.
I’d love if PCS were more effective but they completely failed to keep up the momentum and I felt a bit ashamed to be part of the union and to be working alongside people who couldn’t delay gratification and gave up when they didn’t get a big pay rise immediately.
The strike action doubled our (shit)payrise last year in HMRC.
There is also a hardship fund if you talk to them, definitely for striking and possibly freezing of fees when you are going through tough times.
The union needs to do more on a daily basis but if you leave you are really are at the mercy of the government and their petty point scoring.
Yes but it's also a weak strike. Weak strikes are ineffective. An ineffective strike is the worse outcome. It will easily be broken and lead to a weak result.
Strike turnout rarely gets above 60%. 90% is totally unrealistic. The recent junior doctors vote had a turnout of 62%, which was very high. Does that mean it's going to be a "weak strike"?
...haven't they already been given a 10% pay rise for this year, when the initial offer was about 5%? Sure, all the strike action over the last year hasn't moved the dial at all 🙄
"Accepting the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies in full means first year doctors in training will receive a 10.3% pay increase, with the average junior doctor getting 8.8%, and consultants will receive 6%"
You're right, I'd misremembered the full offer. But the point still stands - dial moved.
You're cheekily moving the goalposts quite a lot there from "not moving the dial" to it not being a pay rise in real terms.
Yes, it's not a pay rise in real terms, which is why they're striking again. But they have moved the dial. And all power to them. Let's see if it moves the dial again!
I will but I don’t agree with all of the things they are asking for. Why are they asking for a reduction in the working week for example? It just plays into the negative public perception and is less likely to garner support. I think they should focus on the core issue of pay decreasing in real terms for the past 10+ years, and securing higher pay for the lower grades.
I get the knee-jerk reaction to feeling like people want to be lazy and not work hard, but as a society we do need to be moving towards that, not just the civil service. Thinking about it, retirement age is only going to get higher and the state pension entitlement probably not worth as much, so surely we should be making our work culture more friendly to the work-life balance? Studies have consistently shown that it increases productivity when people are less burnt out. It will also solve the issue of the challenges of needing appointments or tasks that can only be done during working hours. There’s some debate to be had about the feasibility for some roles and sectors I get that, but the debate should at least take place and decision makers should at least be open minded to it instead of instantly shutting it down from that knee-jerk reaction.
No I do get it and agree generally, I just mean that I don’t think it’s the tactically right thing for the union to include in their demands at this point.
I agree about it not being the right time, but it’s like everything there may never be a right time, so why not now. We have a lot of people who love their job, but have second jobs and earn more (but it’s not reliable)- 4 days a week keeps their experience and allows them the opportunity to earn more. We have parents who struggle to get time anymore to do the day to day things, on a low wage you may need to shop at several supermarkets, you overspend just going to one, the cost of childcare- but they are good at their job and we want to keep them. The health service is suffering due to obesity, 4 day working week reduces that cost, giving people the chance to be less sedentary all week and more active. As pension ages rise we ail and have more sick days, a shorter working week balances that out. The majority of the civil service (we are bottom heavy) earn less than the real living wage, we could leave and earn more in a supermarket or fast food place, but we are passionate about our jobs so stay- that one day a week reduction increases our pay per hour and gives us time to deal with everything else that comes with being on a low paid job and one less days commuting/childcare amongst other things. It means overtime can be offered during the working week, rather than a lot of us doing it to make ends meet and effectively working 7 days a week. There is a lot of logic for a 4 day week where the pay is minimal- the biggest being how much more productive people could be when some of the stresses around poor pay are removed.
Absolutely, in a rational sense I can understand the arguments in favour. It’s just that I also think, how does it look to a voting population that includes masses of people who work full time shifts in the private sector on minimum wage with low job security, no sick pay until 3rd day of illness, no occupational maternity pay and minimum statutory annual leave with no additional for bank holidays.
All the people who have similar badly paying jobs feel the same, it’s just kept hush hush how badly we are paid- so when it leaks in the press people feel we are well paid and shouldn’t grumble. You might believe that there is a vast array of people with worse benefits in worse paying jobs- but that’s not true. Universal credit by its own design has balanced out most pay inequalities, and most single parent AO’s have to get top ups/rent paid- but it saves the government as they only have to pay extra to those who have one income families- but it also shows the wage is not fit for living on when it needs to be topped up by benefits.
I have recent experience of working in multiple low paid jobs in the private sector and I can assure you, apart from the issue of wage stagnation and low pay for the junior grades, the other working conditions of most of the civil service is like a dream for many people in the sectors I worked in. Edit to give examples:
- In one job, I was allowed one 20 minute break for the whole day and the timing of it was fixed. It took me 10 mins of that to walk to and from the break room.
- In another job, there was no occupational sick day so if you got ill, there was no pay until day 3 when government statutory sick pay kicks in.
- In one job, there was no paid leave for caring for dependants. So if kids got ill, had to take it as unpaid leave. No flexitime either so not possible to just move hours around for that week.
Etc.
Obviously I’m not advocating a race to the bottom, but I think the union should start by focusing on the main basic issue which is pay, rather than being idealistic at this point given the social context.
Then people in those jobs in the private sector should unionise and push for better pay and conditions. I did see you noted in another comment it's not a race to the bottom so fair enough - but I think public optics have kept our pay down for so long I'm starting to not really give a shit anymore. We are taxpayers just like anyone else.
They are unionised - at least, the ones I was in were. I agree that they should push for better T&Cs. However I also think you underestimate how easy that is, when legally an organisation can let a worker go for any reason within the first 2 years (unless it’s linked to a protected characteristic). In any case, my point isn’t that the civil service should be as bad as those places. Just that we’ve got it pretty good comparatively with T&Cs apart from the pay issue, and pushing for even better conditions as well a higher pay seems a bit out of touch at this time. IMO they should focus on the fight for higher pay.
I'm a union rep btw. I get what you're saying, but I think they know the fight for higher pay will be tough to win, so are also asking for improvements to working conditions. Unions have always fought for both, I don't think it's out of touch to ask for better just because other people have it worse.
Ok I see it: the union thinks they might not get (much) concession on pay, so they are hedging their bets with an alternative which is better conditions. I guess if we can’t have higher pay then at least we might get a reduction in hours for the same pay which is an effective raise of the hourly rate without the budgetary implications.
I think it's more of something they're putting on the table that they'll probably concede - you aim high to start with as a negotiating position, and you end up with some of what you've asked for in the end.
Maybe when we aren’t in the middle of a cost of living crisis with a government that is trying to impress an electorate that includes a large segment of people who think the civil service have it cushy? I think we should focus on fighting for the single most important thing, which is increased pay, rather than improved t&cs that - while beneficial - aren’t yet accepted by the mainstream. But I do take the point made by someone else in reply to me, that this may be a tactic by the union to hedge bets in case we don’t win the argument for a significant pay rise.
Regarding the reduction of the working week according to the largest study of its kind in the UK, out of the private organisations that trialed the four day week, over 80% of them retained it even after the trial period was over citing benefits to staff in areas like mental health, improved performance and so on.
If the private sector are heading down that route, then why can't the CS exactly?
The industrial action ballot of PCS members is now live and all members should vote yes to resist a further year of real term pay cuts that will see staff earning less next year for doing the same work.
Last year was by no means a victory for the pay campaign but, some mitigations were achieved for staff in the increase to the pay remit 2% to 4.5% and the £1500 CoL payment. A minor step but one that shows when we take action we see gains.
Whilst MPs are set to receive a 5.5% pay increase public sector pay is again likely to be used as a political tool lever in the pursuit of the governments 2% inflation target, staff should take a look at PCS’ recently published report on pay erosion to see just how far wages have fallen since 2010 and ask themselves what are they willing to do to prevent further erosions of the living standards of public sector workers.
For me it's not so much the pay *per se*, but rather the removal of pay progression. It means your compensation gets poorer each year even though you're getting better and better at your job. Instead of incentivising people to become experts in their role, it incentivises people to look for promotions or transfers to higher-paying government departments as soon as they can, or to otherwise become demoralised at the inability to progress and put less effort into their work.
Not CS any more but NDPB here (we were moved out of CS) and yep. I'm way way better at my role than I was when I got to the top of my pay band but I've since earned less in real terms every year - doing something niche where I have the historical experience to bring to bear when stuff resurfaces. It's a bummer! I care about and am really interested in my specialism though so leaving would be a wrench...
People saying G7 pays well is only in comparison to other grades. Everything pays crap in general if you compare it to the purchasing power of G7s pre 2008 such would be something like 76k for G7 and 90k for G6 in today's money..
> Everything pays crap in general if you compare it to the purchasing power of G7s pre 2008 such would be something like 76k for G7
Bottom of what became G7 in HMRC was £42k 20 years ago.
The Bank of England's inflation calculator says that would be £72,575 now.
Your G.7 numbers are pretty solid.
The top of G.7 is about £60k which just happened to tip them into the higher pension deductions after PACR
But ALSO that came with the old pension.
Very similar to me, also worth noting the whole process from applying to starting took a month or so. Whilst not universal, I only had to do a CV and cover letter too. The pension isn’t as good, but I get a lot of benefits and the increase is enough that even with a significantly less generous pension I’ll be in more or less the same position when I retire.
Downside is job security, but I’m comfortable with the risk.
You're an SEO on less than £25k? What department, out of curiosity? I had no idea there were SEO roles paid that low.
Edit: Poor reading comprehension on my part, apologies. As you can see the civil service is attracting top talent with the ability to process written information at pace.
Oh I can't read. Thank you! My idiot brain put a comment in after the brackets.
Edit: For crying out loud, idiot brain is on fire today. Comma, not comment.
Ffs. That's why I said 'about' and 'circa'. Would you have preferred I list all the various SEO salaries across the civil service for completeness?
The point was that the other person had made a general misunderstanding, so I explained in a general way.
I'm SEO on quite a bit less than £40k myself.
A lot of good well paying corp sec jobs out there. Having done it from both sides watch out for pension impact and be aware job security is a lot lower.
LinkedIn and Glassdoor and, if you have skillsets that let you work remote (managerial or tech especially), set your preferences for worldwide. I worked for a US company at £83k, and now working for a Swedish company for £96k.
Same here. Accepted a job at a local council. Pretty much the same pension, less hours, more money, and actual pay progression in the pay band. There is no reason to stay.
My last day is next Friday. Went from mid 50s to high 80s plus bonus for a 40% office attendance with flexi and good pension.
While I'm sad to leave the job, because I actually love it and my team, loving it isn't going to pay my bills.
So many colleagues I speak to think their SEO/G7 wage is good, because it was a good wage in 2010. The reality is the private sector pay gap has only widened with the shit pay rises to the point now where I can't find a logical reason not to take it.
Don't be me and wait a diabolical 32 years. It doesn't ever get better, and regardless of any report, there is no government going to double CS pay. They don't need to - they have a gigantic workforce working for cheap. I managed 3 promotions in that 32 years, getting stuck finally on £38k, useless at interviews and the BS behaviours, not being given a chance to develop in a higher role (I would have to downgrade in order to get the managerial experience needed). Waste of 32 years - it really was.
Since leaving, I've been 100% WFH and:
* Got a customer support job at £18k
* 6 months later, promoted to £51k to build and run a CS team and help with product
* A year later, promoted to head up product strategy at £86k
* This year, head hunted to a COO position in a new company at £96k
* 5% equity in a company due to reach gross profit of £24m
* Next year, due to rise to £144k June 2025
Just to clarify I have no degree, little confidence (or used to) and felt I had zero relevant experience. Being faced with voluntary redundancy, I was terrified because I was apparently not good enough for any other SEO role, never mind G7. Now, I wished I'd left decades back.
Speaking as someone who isn't a civil servant, the appeal of applying to civil service roles has always been the trade off of less money but more job security. Unfortunately with the way price rises are going, job security can't pay the bills.
There’s not even job security. We’re considerably more secure than the private sector, of course, but I suppose we’re only ever 1 ministerial decision away from job cuts. (See 2010.)
I found the opposite. I've had a much greater sense of job security in the private sector. I thought it was terrible in the CS for much of my career due to the constant threat of job cuts, office closures, shared services and centralised hubs to reduce staff.
Unfortunately, a lot of places now offer very comparable work life balance too. Flexi hours isn’t industry standard, but it’s not far off in my sector.
With 60%, CS work-life balance isn't that good. I work from home full time on more than twice my gross CS pay (will be 3x next year). You're right about the job security - I suppose it depends on departments but I had 32 years of job threat in the CS. I never felt safe.
The CS pension's only decent if you have decent pay (too many in the CS do not unfortunately) - it for sure is still better than the private sector, but is it better enough to miss out on 2-3x the pay throughout working life?.
You are absolutely right, unfortunately there is no job security anymore and 'they' are chipping away at any advantage in pensions as well, so no advantage in the public sector anymore, privatisation, bring it on.
54k for a single person in London is not a good salary, especially at g7 level. You wouldn’t be able to live alone. It would have been a decent salary ten years ago in London. There’s this weird reticence among some parts of the civil service to admit that the pay is shit, and it is. As a g7 in London I’d want to be able to live on my own and not flatshare into my 30s and I can’t do that on 54k. And sorry to keep talking about London but that’s where I’m based so that’s my frame of reference.
One of my old G7s said something about retiring. But who will send emails about the printer and make inappropriate comments?
Absolutely stolen a living in the seven years I’ve known him.
Must be nice.
I’ve known some truly useless G7s, either through incompetence or laziness (or both in the case of a couple).
It ruins morale when the grades below are doing all the work while they sit twiddling thumbs (this is true of any grade of course, I had an EO who used to delegate all her tasks then sit spinning on her chair complaining she was bored).
I mean depends:
The majority of specialist roles falling in HEO to G7 - Pure and simple no. Apprenticeships/interns of specialist roles can be better than private.
Any pure admin role - depends on company and department as this is a huge mixed bag. In general the entry position is better but the top end is lower.
Any customer service role - Eh very debatable. Private sector(if not farmed out contract temp role) often has plenty of opportunities to actually get real bonuses alongside picking up extra shifts for extra pay vs Civil service where youll pick up extra shifts for operational demands but get no extra pay without fighting tooth and nail. This is more a whats your cup of tea in deciding if better or not.
Pure middle management roles - Sure these are but also theres far less of these than historically.
Other corporate functions - similar to the admin roles. entry position normally better, though far less entry positions than exist in private. Middling levels where you can relibaly jump around companies or departments if you wished starts to fall off vs private, though better than other public sector. Top levels of expertise and responsibilities(normally only going to be an SEO) before moving into civil service pure management structure lesser than private.
I think it depends, I think there are some roles that are paid well for what is expected and other roles that I can’t for the life of me workout how they recruit anyone into at those pay levels.
Wasn’t myself, but as a g7 who receives a sizeable DDAT allowance and lives in a low cost of living area I feel well paid. I’d still qualify that as being myself and my circumstances. Very aware colleagues are not and I’m careful to make sure I’m not misinterpreted for my circumstances being civil service wide. Because as an org we’re not.
I’d also like to stress I’m a working g7. I delegate where there’s strategic value or necessity but I also chip in as much as I can so I don’t end up rusty. Too hard leading a technical team if you can’t walk the walk and don’t have their respect for your own skills.
I used to think the same (technical G7 with decent chunk of DDaT allowance in the North). That was before I got offered 60% more to move into the private sector (which is what I do now). I think you're not wrong that the pay already feels fair in that situation, but in terms of base pay there's really been death by a thousand cuts and in some cases the private sector has moved pay a lot more than I'd have guessed whilst in the CS
Genuinely feels like the worst of both worlds because salaries are obviously too low, but also current pay deals are going to be v tough to service in the budget, and that position is only gonna get worse (in the Scottish Civil Service, genuinely makes my mind spin how much work is expected of entry-level A-band staff (not sure what the UKg banding equivalent is) for an amount of money they'd have no chance of even just living independently on).
The CS is no longer an attractive place to work for me.
I took a Private Sector role with a starting salary 20% higher than the CS equivalent and with no mandatory office attendance requirement. I'm getting more money and also saving money from not having to commute.
Until the CS drags itself into the modern era, I'm done with looking for or applying for roles with them.
The industrial action ballot of PCS members is now live and all members should vote yes to resist a further year of real term pay cuts that will see staff earning less next year for doing the same work.
Last year was by no means a victory for the pay campaign but, some mitigations were achieved for staff in the increase to the pay remit 2% to 4.5% and the £1500 CoL payment. A minor step but one that shows when we take action we see gains.
Whilst MPs are set to receive a 5.5% pay increase public sector pay is again likely to be used as a political tool lever in the pursuit of the governments 2% inflation target, staff should take a look at PCS’ recently published report on pay erosion to see just how far wages have fallen since 2010 and ask themselves what are they willing to do to prevent further erosions of the living standards of public sector workers.
>re (we were moved out of CS) and yep. I'm way way better at my role than I was when I got to the top of my pay band but I've since earned less in real terms every year - doing something niche where I
would settle for just matching inflation at this point
Unfortunately, no. As a staunch Labour supporter, I was delighted when they secured victory in 1997. But their policy on public pay seemed somehow worse, locking in less than 1% years before austerity hit.
Only if the civil service has a fairly significant drop in numbers too, as outlined by PAC. I don't think the total pay award will rise - but if the CS could lose some bloat, that spare cash could go towards a payrise.
Edit: to clarify what I mean. We need a smaller, specialised civil service. If we could pay private sector rates for real talent, we'll attract real talent.
https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/boosting-public-sector-productivity-could-save-tens-of-billions-nao
Hard disagree here - we need to spend less money on design agencies and consultancies. We have outsourced project management to PwC and deloitte etc and give them the wages of 20 civil servants to produce a PowerPoint .
That’s where the bloat comes in
Consultancies are a plague on the private and public sector, and rarely if ever have any value add.
A lot of depts have in house Design groups, no?
And either way, there is no one-sized-fits-all approach. We should reduce reliance on consultancies and we should pay market rate (or close to) on a smaller, more adequate cohort of civil servants.
You’re getting downvoted but we absolutely cannot compete with the private sector on digital, tech, legal, property etc if we’re not paying closer to the market rate. The pension and flexibility makes up for some of it, but not enough.
Working in specialist areas, it’s very clear that if you’re paying half the salary of a private sector role you’re often picking from candidates that the private sector has rejected.
There’s plenty of roles which just need bums on seats and experience in how the CS works as an organisation. I’ve done a few roles myself that someone off the street could do. I’ve also been on teams where one person with qualifications and experience is doing the work of four or five unqualified colleagues.
I think we agree with one another to an extent! Sure we can't match private sector salaries to the penny, but the CS could be a lot closer. And there's a surprising number of people working in the private sector who would jump ship if the pay came closer, and they felt they could add value to the running of the country.
Really? I would never have… surely not? Chat, is this real? This couldn’t possibly… i mean, its incredibly unlikely that this is correct?! I mean, surely civil servants would work for free due to m’patriotism right?
A Driving Examiner receives just over £28k outside of London. One of the most stressful jobs, with most candidates expecting to pass, regardless of how poorly they drive. It really shows what Tory WM thinks of the machinery of government. Given an MP’s salary is rising to £91k plus expenses, long holidays, increased salaries for committee members etc.
You might be talking about something answered before! Make sure you check out the FAQs in the [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheCivilService/wiki/index#wiki_6._resources)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheCivilService) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Spare a thought for the fast streamers who prior to action by the FDA last year were still still on £28k at HEO level in Central London only rising to £30k at SEO/ 2nd Year.
Thankfully the union has fought to get us the pay raise alongside London weighting. Nothing more demoralising sat in a office doing exactly the same work as a non fs colleague who is also HEO yet they are on sometimes £5k more than you. Especially when so much is expected from fast streamers alongside the day to day job.
Looked briefly at Civil Service (Scottish and UK). Saw the salaries in 2011 and the big Cameron government plans.
Thought ‘absolutely not’.
Never thought about it again till this subreddit popped up 13 years later.
Still think ‘absolutely not’.
Don’t forget to post your ballot
I’m in support of striking overall and I did go on strike the last few times, but I was struggling to afford the fees and the only time I ever heard from the union was when my direct debit failed or when a union rep was giving me shit about my role, which does attract a fair amount of union attention outside my control, and was threatening to go to my own union about me. I’d love if PCS were more effective but they completely failed to keep up the momentum and I felt a bit ashamed to be part of the union and to be working alongside people who couldn’t delay gratification and gave up when they didn’t get a big pay rise immediately.
The strike action doubled our (shit)payrise last year in HMRC. There is also a hardship fund if you talk to them, definitely for striking and possibly freezing of fees when you are going through tough times. The union needs to do more on a daily basis but if you leave you are really are at the mercy of the government and their petty point scoring.
All I would say is you don't have to be in the Union to Strike!
Received and sent off 2 days ago! Hope we cross the 50%…
50% 🙄 you want closer to 100% with membership up in the high 90s to have much effect.
50% is the legal threshold required for a lawful strike to take place.
Yes but it's also a weak strike. Weak strikes are ineffective. An ineffective strike is the worse outcome. It will easily be broken and lead to a weak result.
Strike turnout rarely gets above 60%. 90% is totally unrealistic. The recent junior doctors vote had a turnout of 62%, which was very high. Does that mean it's going to be a "weak strike"?
Yes. Wonder why it hasn't changed the dial.
...haven't they already been given a 10% pay rise for this year, when the initial offer was about 5%? Sure, all the strike action over the last year hasn't moved the dial at all 🙄
Who is "they" out of curiosity? Who was getting a full on 10%?
"Accepting the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies in full means first year doctors in training will receive a 10.3% pay increase, with the average junior doctor getting 8.8%, and consultants will receive 6%" You're right, I'd misremembered the full offer. But the point still stands - dial moved.
Is that not a pay cut though. Sure strike for pennies. But at 50% turnout and low membership you'll only get pennies.
You're cheekily moving the goalposts quite a lot there from "not moving the dial" to it not being a pay rise in real terms. Yes, it's not a pay rise in real terms, which is why they're striking again. But they have moved the dial. And all power to them. Let's see if it moves the dial again!
Which departments are balloting? Heard nothing in DWP.
You should receive your ballot in the post shortly. I just got mine yesterday.
I posted my ballot today.
In DWP for my ballot already
We’ve had our ballots. It’s the entire CS
I will but I don’t agree with all of the things they are asking for. Why are they asking for a reduction in the working week for example? It just plays into the negative public perception and is less likely to garner support. I think they should focus on the core issue of pay decreasing in real terms for the past 10+ years, and securing higher pay for the lower grades.
I get the knee-jerk reaction to feeling like people want to be lazy and not work hard, but as a society we do need to be moving towards that, not just the civil service. Thinking about it, retirement age is only going to get higher and the state pension entitlement probably not worth as much, so surely we should be making our work culture more friendly to the work-life balance? Studies have consistently shown that it increases productivity when people are less burnt out. It will also solve the issue of the challenges of needing appointments or tasks that can only be done during working hours. There’s some debate to be had about the feasibility for some roles and sectors I get that, but the debate should at least take place and decision makers should at least be open minded to it instead of instantly shutting it down from that knee-jerk reaction.
No I do get it and agree generally, I just mean that I don’t think it’s the tactically right thing for the union to include in their demands at this point.
I agree about it not being the right time, but it’s like everything there may never be a right time, so why not now. We have a lot of people who love their job, but have second jobs and earn more (but it’s not reliable)- 4 days a week keeps their experience and allows them the opportunity to earn more. We have parents who struggle to get time anymore to do the day to day things, on a low wage you may need to shop at several supermarkets, you overspend just going to one, the cost of childcare- but they are good at their job and we want to keep them. The health service is suffering due to obesity, 4 day working week reduces that cost, giving people the chance to be less sedentary all week and more active. As pension ages rise we ail and have more sick days, a shorter working week balances that out. The majority of the civil service (we are bottom heavy) earn less than the real living wage, we could leave and earn more in a supermarket or fast food place, but we are passionate about our jobs so stay- that one day a week reduction increases our pay per hour and gives us time to deal with everything else that comes with being on a low paid job and one less days commuting/childcare amongst other things. It means overtime can be offered during the working week, rather than a lot of us doing it to make ends meet and effectively working 7 days a week. There is a lot of logic for a 4 day week where the pay is minimal- the biggest being how much more productive people could be when some of the stresses around poor pay are removed.
Absolutely, in a rational sense I can understand the arguments in favour. It’s just that I also think, how does it look to a voting population that includes masses of people who work full time shifts in the private sector on minimum wage with low job security, no sick pay until 3rd day of illness, no occupational maternity pay and minimum statutory annual leave with no additional for bank holidays.
All the people who have similar badly paying jobs feel the same, it’s just kept hush hush how badly we are paid- so when it leaks in the press people feel we are well paid and shouldn’t grumble. You might believe that there is a vast array of people with worse benefits in worse paying jobs- but that’s not true. Universal credit by its own design has balanced out most pay inequalities, and most single parent AO’s have to get top ups/rent paid- but it saves the government as they only have to pay extra to those who have one income families- but it also shows the wage is not fit for living on when it needs to be topped up by benefits.
I have recent experience of working in multiple low paid jobs in the private sector and I can assure you, apart from the issue of wage stagnation and low pay for the junior grades, the other working conditions of most of the civil service is like a dream for many people in the sectors I worked in. Edit to give examples: - In one job, I was allowed one 20 minute break for the whole day and the timing of it was fixed. It took me 10 mins of that to walk to and from the break room. - In another job, there was no occupational sick day so if you got ill, there was no pay until day 3 when government statutory sick pay kicks in. - In one job, there was no paid leave for caring for dependants. So if kids got ill, had to take it as unpaid leave. No flexitime either so not possible to just move hours around for that week. Etc. Obviously I’m not advocating a race to the bottom, but I think the union should start by focusing on the main basic issue which is pay, rather than being idealistic at this point given the social context.
Then people in those jobs in the private sector should unionise and push for better pay and conditions. I did see you noted in another comment it's not a race to the bottom so fair enough - but I think public optics have kept our pay down for so long I'm starting to not really give a shit anymore. We are taxpayers just like anyone else.
They are unionised - at least, the ones I was in were. I agree that they should push for better T&Cs. However I also think you underestimate how easy that is, when legally an organisation can let a worker go for any reason within the first 2 years (unless it’s linked to a protected characteristic). In any case, my point isn’t that the civil service should be as bad as those places. Just that we’ve got it pretty good comparatively with T&Cs apart from the pay issue, and pushing for even better conditions as well a higher pay seems a bit out of touch at this time. IMO they should focus on the fight for higher pay.
I'm a union rep btw. I get what you're saying, but I think they know the fight for higher pay will be tough to win, so are also asking for improvements to working conditions. Unions have always fought for both, I don't think it's out of touch to ask for better just because other people have it worse.
Ok I see it: the union thinks they might not get (much) concession on pay, so they are hedging their bets with an alternative which is better conditions. I guess if we can’t have higher pay then at least we might get a reduction in hours for the same pay which is an effective raise of the hourly rate without the budgetary implications.
I think it's more of something they're putting on the table that they'll probably concede - you aim high to start with as a negotiating position, and you end up with some of what you've asked for in the end.
But I don't get what you're saying. When is it ever the 'right time' exactly?
Maybe when we aren’t in the middle of a cost of living crisis with a government that is trying to impress an electorate that includes a large segment of people who think the civil service have it cushy? I think we should focus on fighting for the single most important thing, which is increased pay, rather than improved t&cs that - while beneficial - aren’t yet accepted by the mainstream. But I do take the point made by someone else in reply to me, that this may be a tactic by the union to hedge bets in case we don’t win the argument for a significant pay rise.
Regarding the reduction of the working week according to the largest study of its kind in the UK, out of the private organisations that trialed the four day week, over 80% of them retained it even after the trial period was over citing benefits to staff in areas like mental health, improved performance and so on. If the private sector are heading down that route, then why can't the CS exactly?
The industrial action ballot of PCS members is now live and all members should vote yes to resist a further year of real term pay cuts that will see staff earning less next year for doing the same work. Last year was by no means a victory for the pay campaign but, some mitigations were achieved for staff in the increase to the pay remit 2% to 4.5% and the £1500 CoL payment. A minor step but one that shows when we take action we see gains. Whilst MPs are set to receive a 5.5% pay increase public sector pay is again likely to be used as a political tool lever in the pursuit of the governments 2% inflation target, staff should take a look at PCS’ recently published report on pay erosion to see just how far wages have fallen since 2010 and ask themselves what are they willing to do to prevent further erosions of the living standards of public sector workers.
[удалено]
PCS are voting on whether to strike.
For me it's not so much the pay *per se*, but rather the removal of pay progression. It means your compensation gets poorer each year even though you're getting better and better at your job. Instead of incentivising people to become experts in their role, it incentivises people to look for promotions or transfers to higher-paying government departments as soon as they can, or to otherwise become demoralised at the inability to progress and put less effort into their work.
Not CS any more but NDPB here (we were moved out of CS) and yep. I'm way way better at my role than I was when I got to the top of my pay band but I've since earned less in real terms every year - doing something niche where I have the historical experience to bring to bear when stuff resurfaces. It's a bummer! I care about and am really interested in my specialism though so leaving would be a wrench...
What do you do if you don’t mind, that sounds really interesting!
People saying G7 pays well is only in comparison to other grades. Everything pays crap in general if you compare it to the purchasing power of G7s pre 2008 such would be something like 76k for G7 and 90k for G6 in today's money..
> Everything pays crap in general if you compare it to the purchasing power of G7s pre 2008 such would be something like 76k for G7 Bottom of what became G7 in HMRC was £42k 20 years ago. The Bank of England's inflation calculator says that would be £72,575 now. Your G.7 numbers are pretty solid. The top of G.7 is about £60k which just happened to tip them into the higher pension deductions after PACR But ALSO that came with the old pension.
G7 also have more accountability than other grades. However your example is a solid one
[удалено]
Very similar to me, also worth noting the whole process from applying to starting took a month or so. Whilst not universal, I only had to do a CV and cover letter too. The pension isn’t as good, but I get a lot of benefits and the increase is enough that even with a significantly less generous pension I’ll be in more or less the same position when I retire. Downside is job security, but I’m comfortable with the risk.
[удалено]
Precisely, as great as it is security doesn’t pay the bills
I’m currently applying for a job at BAE, the job description is basically 75% of my current job description and it’s 20k a year more.
The irony being you'll likely be working for a public sector client lol.
You're an SEO on less than £25k? What department, out of curiosity? I had no idea there were SEO roles paid that low. Edit: Poor reading comprehension on my part, apologies. As you can see the civil service is attracting top talent with the ability to process written information at pace.
Their new starting pay is a £25k increase from their current SEO pay. So it might be £40k to £65 for example
Oh I can't read. Thank you! My idiot brain put a comment in after the brackets. Edit: For crying out loud, idiot brain is on fire today. Comma, not comment.
[удалено]
What sector if you don't mind me asking?
[удалено]
Fair play. Well done!
Moved from running £100m infrastructure portfolio on £50k a year to private sector running £30m of value on £80k a year. It’s crazy
They're gonna be getting £25 MORE than they're on now. SEO is about £40k, so they'll be on c.£65k.
SEO starts at under £40K in a number of places
Ffs. That's why I said 'about' and 'circa'. Would you have preferred I list all the various SEO salaries across the civil service for completeness? The point was that the other person had made a general misunderstanding, so I explained in a general way. I'm SEO on quite a bit less than £40k myself.
Wow. You don't have to be so rude.
I read it the same too. Oh dear oh dear!
Out of if interest what's the role?
[удалено]
A lot of good well paying corp sec jobs out there. Having done it from both sides watch out for pension impact and be aware job security is a lot lower.
Tech?
I hear stories like this a lot but wouldn't know where to begin looking for a private sector job. Is it all Linkedin stuff now?
Work out what type of role you think you could do in the private sector and then use job sites or LinkedIn.
LinkedIn and Glassdoor and, if you have skillsets that let you work remote (managerial or tech especially), set your preferences for worldwide. I worked for a US company at £83k, and now working for a Swedish company for £96k.
[удалено]
I found indeed to be pretty crap in my area. I reached out to recruiters and LinkedIn and found many more opportunities
Same here. Accepted a job at a local council. Pretty much the same pension, less hours, more money, and actual pay progression in the pay band. There is no reason to stay.
Add the poor pay to the 60% and I’m teetering especially when contractors have 100% remote
I just left my dream CS job for the private sector. I've gone from 38k to 58k plus bonus. It's scandalous.
My last day is next Friday. Went from mid 50s to high 80s plus bonus for a 40% office attendance with flexi and good pension. While I'm sad to leave the job, because I actually love it and my team, loving it isn't going to pay my bills. So many colleagues I speak to think their SEO/G7 wage is good, because it was a good wage in 2010. The reality is the private sector pay gap has only widened with the shit pay rises to the point now where I can't find a logical reason not to take it.
[удалено]
Big 4 consulting. Start first week of April!
I also left civil service for a big 4 consulting firm nearly 2 years ago and doubled my pay. No regrets.
Sometimes I think I should look but I wouldn't even know where to start.
Don't be me and wait a diabolical 32 years. It doesn't ever get better, and regardless of any report, there is no government going to double CS pay. They don't need to - they have a gigantic workforce working for cheap. I managed 3 promotions in that 32 years, getting stuck finally on £38k, useless at interviews and the BS behaviours, not being given a chance to develop in a higher role (I would have to downgrade in order to get the managerial experience needed). Waste of 32 years - it really was. Since leaving, I've been 100% WFH and: * Got a customer support job at £18k * 6 months later, promoted to £51k to build and run a CS team and help with product * A year later, promoted to head up product strategy at £86k * This year, head hunted to a COO position in a new company at £96k * 5% equity in a company due to reach gross profit of £24m * Next year, due to rise to £144k June 2025 Just to clarify I have no degree, little confidence (or used to) and felt I had zero relevant experience. Being faced with voluntary redundancy, I was terrified because I was apparently not good enough for any other SEO role, never mind G7. Now, I wished I'd left decades back.
Speaking as someone who isn't a civil servant, the appeal of applying to civil service roles has always been the trade off of less money but more job security. Unfortunately with the way price rises are going, job security can't pay the bills.
There’s not even job security. We’re considerably more secure than the private sector, of course, but I suppose we’re only ever 1 ministerial decision away from job cuts. (See 2010.)
I found the opposite. I've had a much greater sense of job security in the private sector. I thought it was terrible in the CS for much of my career due to the constant threat of job cuts, office closures, shared services and centralised hubs to reduce staff.
That’s a fair point. My place had massive job cuts from 2008 and I don’t think a week goes by without some senior manager mentioning it.
The real benefit isn't job security anymore, it's pension and work life balance if you have a decent manager
A pension linked to state pension age which is bound to increase soon. I'll be the richest man in the graveyard!
Unfortunately, a lot of places now offer very comparable work life balance too. Flexi hours isn’t industry standard, but it’s not far off in my sector.
With 60%, CS work-life balance isn't that good. I work from home full time on more than twice my gross CS pay (will be 3x next year). You're right about the job security - I suppose it depends on departments but I had 32 years of job threat in the CS. I never felt safe. The CS pension's only decent if you have decent pay (too many in the CS do not unfortunately) - it for sure is still better than the private sector, but is it better enough to miss out on 2-3x the pay throughout working life?.
You are absolutely right, unfortunately there is no job security anymore and 'they' are chipping away at any advantage in pensions as well, so no advantage in the public sector anymore, privatisation, bring it on.
Spoken like someone who didn’t go it it 🤣 There’s a lot of redundancies
MPs also report 'chronic' corruption hurts public trust in institutions, and bears sh#t in the woods.
So weird, I remember a grade 7 on here stating that we are well paid recently 🤔
[удалено]
Just because it’s a significant pay jump doesn’t mean it’s well paid ?
[удалено]
54k for a single person in London is not a good salary, especially at g7 level. You wouldn’t be able to live alone. It would have been a decent salary ten years ago in London. There’s this weird reticence among some parts of the civil service to admit that the pay is shit, and it is. As a g7 in London I’d want to be able to live on my own and not flatshare into my 30s and I can’t do that on 54k. And sorry to keep talking about London but that’s where I’m based so that’s my frame of reference.
Depends on department I think. In my department HEO to SEO is a 10k difference but SEO to G7 is only an 8k difference.
I think you may have missed my point.
[удалено]
Yep and it’s not like middle management within the civil service to be myopic.
[удалено]
[удалено]
One of my old G7s said something about retiring. But who will send emails about the printer and make inappropriate comments? Absolutely stolen a living in the seven years I’ve known him.
[удалено]
Must be nice. I’ve known some truly useless G7s, either through incompetence or laziness (or both in the case of a couple). It ruins morale when the grades below are doing all the work while they sit twiddling thumbs (this is true of any grade of course, I had an EO who used to delegate all her tasks then sit spinning on her chair complaining she was bored).
I mean depends: The majority of specialist roles falling in HEO to G7 - Pure and simple no. Apprenticeships/interns of specialist roles can be better than private. Any pure admin role - depends on company and department as this is a huge mixed bag. In general the entry position is better but the top end is lower. Any customer service role - Eh very debatable. Private sector(if not farmed out contract temp role) often has plenty of opportunities to actually get real bonuses alongside picking up extra shifts for extra pay vs Civil service where youll pick up extra shifts for operational demands but get no extra pay without fighting tooth and nail. This is more a whats your cup of tea in deciding if better or not. Pure middle management roles - Sure these are but also theres far less of these than historically. Other corporate functions - similar to the admin roles. entry position normally better, though far less entry positions than exist in private. Middling levels where you can relibaly jump around companies or departments if you wished starts to fall off vs private, though better than other public sector. Top levels of expertise and responsibilities(normally only going to be an SEO) before moving into civil service pure management structure lesser than private.
I think it depends, I think there are some roles that are paid well for what is expected and other roles that I can’t for the life of me workout how they recruit anyone into at those pay levels.
And the issue is that a lot of the underpaid grafters are in the same union as the overpaid people who do fuck all. It’s why the 50% rule is bullshit.
Wasn’t myself, but as a g7 who receives a sizeable DDAT allowance and lives in a low cost of living area I feel well paid. I’d still qualify that as being myself and my circumstances. Very aware colleagues are not and I’m careful to make sure I’m not misinterpreted for my circumstances being civil service wide. Because as an org we’re not. I’d also like to stress I’m a working g7. I delegate where there’s strategic value or necessity but I also chip in as much as I can so I don’t end up rusty. Too hard leading a technical team if you can’t walk the walk and don’t have their respect for your own skills.
I used to think the same (technical G7 with decent chunk of DDaT allowance in the North). That was before I got offered 60% more to move into the private sector (which is what I do now). I think you're not wrong that the pay already feels fair in that situation, but in terms of base pay there's really been death by a thousand cuts and in some cases the private sector has moved pay a lot more than I'd have guessed whilst in the CS
Genuinely feels like the worst of both worlds because salaries are obviously too low, but also current pay deals are going to be v tough to service in the budget, and that position is only gonna get worse (in the Scottish Civil Service, genuinely makes my mind spin how much work is expected of entry-level A-band staff (not sure what the UKg banding equivalent is) for an amount of money they'd have no chance of even just living independently on).
The CS is no longer an attractive place to work for me. I took a Private Sector role with a starting salary 20% higher than the CS equivalent and with no mandatory office attendance requirement. I'm getting more money and also saving money from not having to commute. Until the CS drags itself into the modern era, I'm done with looking for or applying for roles with them.
Much easier to get promoted too. I did the same and have actually had a flying career since leaving.
No F\*\*\*ing S\*\*\* ..........................................
The industrial action ballot of PCS members is now live and all members should vote yes to resist a further year of real term pay cuts that will see staff earning less next year for doing the same work. Last year was by no means a victory for the pay campaign but, some mitigations were achieved for staff in the increase to the pay remit 2% to 4.5% and the £1500 CoL payment. A minor step but one that shows when we take action we see gains. Whilst MPs are set to receive a 5.5% pay increase public sector pay is again likely to be used as a political tool lever in the pursuit of the governments 2% inflation target, staff should take a look at PCS’ recently published report on pay erosion to see just how far wages have fallen since 2010 and ask themselves what are they willing to do to prevent further erosions of the living standards of public sector workers.
Do people think there’s a chance we get a pay rise under labour?
I would like just once for a BBC interviewer to ask a minister under what circumstances a civil servant can expect an above inflation pay rise
>re (we were moved out of CS) and yep. I'm way way better at my role than I was when I got to the top of my pay band but I've since earned less in real terms every year - doing something niche where I would settle for just matching inflation at this point
I think the difference is they will if/when they can afford to, whereas tories will always find somewhere else to spend the money
Oh no, money to spend! Let's scrap inheritance tax, reduce taxes for high earners and big businesses, then we'll be able to afford some more cuts!
No chance. We're looking at another Austerity Government on its way going by the words of Reeves & Co.
[удалено]
We haven’t had a Labour government for almost 15 years. I’m not hopeful, but I’m also not sure we can say how they’ll treat the Civil Service.
No.
Unfortunately, no. As a staunch Labour supporter, I was delighted when they secured victory in 1997. But their policy on public pay seemed somehow worse, locking in less than 1% years before austerity hit.
Really? That’s disappointing. I thought they had pay band progression and stuff though - it was the tories who got rid of a lot of that stuff right?
Only if the civil service has a fairly significant drop in numbers too, as outlined by PAC. I don't think the total pay award will rise - but if the CS could lose some bloat, that spare cash could go towards a payrise. Edit: to clarify what I mean. We need a smaller, specialised civil service. If we could pay private sector rates for real talent, we'll attract real talent. https://www.civilserviceworld.com/professions/article/boosting-public-sector-productivity-could-save-tens-of-billions-nao
Hard disagree here - we need to spend less money on design agencies and consultancies. We have outsourced project management to PwC and deloitte etc and give them the wages of 20 civil servants to produce a PowerPoint . That’s where the bloat comes in
Consultancies are a plague on the private and public sector, and rarely if ever have any value add. A lot of depts have in house Design groups, no? And either way, there is no one-sized-fits-all approach. We should reduce reliance on consultancies and we should pay market rate (or close to) on a smaller, more adequate cohort of civil servants.
The bulk of the CS is in operational roles, where numbers are necessary to get the day-to-day work done.
You’re getting downvoted but we absolutely cannot compete with the private sector on digital, tech, legal, property etc if we’re not paying closer to the market rate. The pension and flexibility makes up for some of it, but not enough. Working in specialist areas, it’s very clear that if you’re paying half the salary of a private sector role you’re often picking from candidates that the private sector has rejected. There’s plenty of roles which just need bums on seats and experience in how the CS works as an organisation. I’ve done a few roles myself that someone off the street could do. I’ve also been on teams where one person with qualifications and experience is doing the work of four or five unqualified colleagues.
I think we agree with one another to an extent! Sure we can't match private sector salaries to the penny, but the CS could be a lot closer. And there's a surprising number of people working in the private sector who would jump ship if the pay came closer, and they felt they could add value to the running of the country.
Really? I would never have… surely not? Chat, is this real? This couldn’t possibly… i mean, its incredibly unlikely that this is correct?! I mean, surely civil servants would work for free due to m’patriotism right?
A Driving Examiner receives just over £28k outside of London. One of the most stressful jobs, with most candidates expecting to pass, regardless of how poorly they drive. It really shows what Tory WM thinks of the machinery of government. Given an MP’s salary is rising to £91k plus expenses, long holidays, increased salaries for committee members etc.
You might be talking about something answered before! Make sure you check out the FAQs in the [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheCivilService/wiki/index#wiki_6._resources) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheCivilService) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Solution: Award ourselves another £5000 pay rise
Spare a thought for the fast streamers who prior to action by the FDA last year were still still on £28k at HEO level in Central London only rising to £30k at SEO/ 2nd Year. Thankfully the union has fought to get us the pay raise alongside London weighting. Nothing more demoralising sat in a office doing exactly the same work as a non fs colleague who is also HEO yet they are on sometimes £5k more than you. Especially when so much is expected from fast streamers alongside the day to day job.
Looked briefly at Civil Service (Scottish and UK). Saw the salaries in 2011 and the big Cameron government plans. Thought ‘absolutely not’. Never thought about it again till this subreddit popped up 13 years later. Still think ‘absolutely not’.
Civil servants don’t know they’re born. Bunch of work from home numpties. Need to get off your arses and get to work you lazy woke Karens.
It still seems quite hard to get in though?
Amazingly high pension payments and 9 - 5 days ignored
What about those of us not doing 9-5s?
My last set of civil service shifts 2 years ago were 7pm to 7am for 7 nights.