|
|
|
 |
Year Zeroists Are Damaging Your Pay
|
Date: 17th Jan 2005
Was last year the first year of the Bank’s new pay system or Year Zero? It may seem an odd question to ask but the answer means the difference between a 3.5% pay pot, which is what the Bank is proposing again for this year, or a 7%+ pay pot which is what would be required to meet Eric Daniels’ commitment to staff.
Last year's pay booklet, endorsed by Eric Daniels, told staff that “If your salary is currently in the bottom zone then it shouldn’t take more than two or three years for you to move to the middle zone.” At the time the Bank said that for Bands 8 - 6 they would get from the ‘primary’ zone to the ‘market’ zone in two years and three years for Bands 5 - 2.
But no. The Bank has now said that last year wasn’t the first year of the new pay system, it was Year Zero. According to the Year Zeroists, the Bank doesn’t need to get Bands 8 - 6 into the ‘market’ zone until April 2006, and Bands 5 - 2 until April 2007.
The Bank’s argument contradicts what the Director of Compensation and Benefits said last year. He said, in the context of what the new pay system would mean for line managers in April 2004, that “Pay recommendations will clearly not be able to correct mismatches in one year, but they must make sure that their action improves the position.” So he accepted that April 2004 was one year and thus logically April 2005 must be two years.
Mark Brown, Assistant General Secretary said "The Year Zeroists simply confirm what we have long suspected, that there are people running the Bank who live and work in a different universe to everyone else. Eric Daniels' commitment was clear and understood by all staff. The Bank must honour that commitment this year regardless of cost. Those staff that were in the 'primary' zone last year must receive a salary increase to take them into the ‘market’ zone. Equally, those staff in Bands 5 - 2 currently in the 'primary' zone should receive significant increases to enable them to move into the 'market' zone next year. If the Bank continues with the Year Zero nonsense then any future commitments given by the Chief Executive to his staff will be treated with outright suspicion. That is an unacceptable position for a Chief Executive to be put in when he’s struggling to create a high performance organisation."
 |
|
|
|
