Pay rises for the public sector - is it enough?

Sunak’s announcement of above-inflation pay rises for public sector workers described as a ‘kick in the teeth’ by recipients.

Photography by HM Treasury on Flickr

Chancellor Rishi Sunak has recently announced above-inflation pay rises for over 900,000 public sector employees, ranging from 2 to 3.1 per cent. This seems like a well-deserved compensation for those on the frontlines during the pandemic, providing a “vital contribution” to the country. Over 300 NHS workers have died from contracting the virus in the last six months, many while caring for their patients. Beyond doubt, it is fitting that they are rewarded for their efforts. 

But what are the real implications of these raises? Will they bring any change to the financial positions of chronically overworked, underpaid staff, who deserve it the most and have put their lives on the line? Upon closer examination, the actions that the government offers in return for the bravery of public workers falls short of expectations. 

Under the proposed plan, teachers, doctors and dentists will see the greatest raises between 3.1 and 2.8 per cent; this seems only logical. This will be followed by police officers, prison officers and the National Crime Agency staff, who will also be gaining a 2.5 per cent pay rise for their contributions during the pandemic. Members of the armed forces will also be seeing a pay rise of 2 per cent, alongside senior members of the civil service and the judiciary. 

The raises for armed forces, prison officers, senior civil servants and NHS staff will be backdated to April 2021, although increases for police officers and teachers will come into force in September 2020, due to a difference in pay schedules. 

The first problem comes with the proposed increases; economists say that once inflation has been stripped out, the average pay for public sector workers remains below the levels of 2010. This is a result of the years of austerity programmes, in which minimal raises and pay freezes were the order of the day; from 2013 to 2018, increases were limited to 1 per cent per year to decrease budget deficit. 

Shadow Chancellor Anneliese Dodds has also criticised this, remarking that the Conservatives had frozen public sector pay for seven years, and that the introduction of these raises completely fail to make up this gap, caused by “a decade of real-term pay cuts.” She also commented that it was “not fair,” as most will not get a raise at all, given that promises to boost local authority funding have not been kept. 

Moreover, these pay increases will be coming out of department budgets; extra funding to pay for these will not be available. The Treasury claims that pay awards are assessed for affordability, and these should not affect public services provisions. Though idealistic, this claim only serves to remind us of the huge budget deficit that has been brought on by the pandemic, and makes the implementation of this plan seem a tad unrealistic. 

Secondly, a case can be made for many of these non-NHS public workers receiving a raise - the armed forces, for example, provided aid in setting up seven temporary Nightingale hospitals across the UK during the peak of the pandemic. Prison officers have undoubtedly risked their lives in places where conditions are tight and many have tested positive for Covid-19 to keep doing their jobs. It is a step in the right direction. 

However, for some, it may be hard to believe that senior civil servants and members of the judiciary, who have annual salaries ranging from £70,670 - 91,320 and £110,335 - 257,121 respectively, who have been able to work from home, and who have not been risking their lives, are receiving a pay rise when nurses, junior doctors, care workers and other vital hospital staff are not. 

Care workers are arguably getting the worst of the deal - Kit Malthouse, the minister for Crime and Policing, has said that because many carers work in the private sector, the government does not possess the influence to enforce raises. He has said they are attempting to drive up the minimum wage and hope that this is enough to push some change through into private care positions. The same inaction is seen with non-medics in the NHS, such as porters and cleaning staff, and with local public servants like council workers and job centre staff, who are gaining nothing, despite dealing with incredible surges of Universal Credit claims. 

Junior doctors and nurses, as well as other hospital staff like midwives, radiographers and cleaners, will also be denied increases due to previous deals struck with the government in 2018 and 2019. However, many were dissatisfied with the government’s offers and sceptical about their implementations. The four-year deal for junior doctors was criticised for its “modest financial gains, largely negated by inflation” and many “contractual loopholes” by the Doctors’ Association UK. The three-year deal for nurses was generally better received, but was still seen by some as a “quick fix” to a chronic problem. Both parties wanted to be assured that the government was committed to decent, long-term wage rises. 

This present neglect by the government came into sharp focus on the 72nd anniversary of the NHS, this June, when Health Secretary Matt Hancock insisted that “now is not the moment to enter into a pay negotiation” for NHS nurses. This was despite MPs enjoying a 3.1 per cent pay rise agreed in March, bringing their basic salary to above £81,000, as well as an increase in expenses to cover the costs of staffing their parliamentary offices. This double standard certainly raises questions to do with how much the government actually values their public workers, particularly those saving lives. 

Finally, even from those receiving the highest pay rises there has been criticism of the plan. Dr David Wrigly, the vice-chair of the British Medical Association, said doctors felt “let down" by the announcement as they were “hoping for far better” than a 2.8 per cent increase. He cites it as an amount that would be suitable for times of normality, not a period in which many have not had a day off in six months and are continually “putting [their] lives on the line.” 

Teachers’ unions have also remarked that although the raises are welcomed for newly-qualified teachers, they are disappointed for their more experienced staff. Geoff Barton, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, described it as a “kick in the teeth” for long serving teachers. He was also worried that current investment is not sufficient to ensure that schools are able to pay the award within its scope. Dr Mary Bousted, the joint general secretary of the National Education Union, also pointed out that increasing starting salaries by 5.5 per cent made the profession more desirable for graduates, but meant that teacher retention was a harder aspect to tackle as salaries started “tapering off.” 

In essence, the proposed pay rise for public sector workers is a double-edged sword - in some senses, it is a step in the right direction, and it will provide compensation for many who deserve it after risking their lives during the pandemic. However, it is problematic in other senses; it is debatable as to how much the pay rises will actually impact the financial statuses of its beneficiaries. It has its problems for even those who are receiving the highest increases. Lastly, it is once again excluding perhaps the lowest-paid public servants, such as nurses, non-medical NHS staff, carers and local authority workers, while including high-earners like senior civil servants and judiciary members. This further widens the pay gap between those in privileged positions and those less so, and provokes further questions about the sincerity of the government’s intentions towards public servants, and health workers in particular. 

We have all clapped for the NHS. Rainbows have been painted on the street and shopfronts and deep gratitude expressed on camera by politicians and senior officials. It is now the time for action, but these pay rises fall short of expectations, no matter how good the government’s intentions. 

Pi Opinion content does not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team, Pi Media society, Students’ Union UCL or University College London. We aim to publish opinions from across the student body — if you read anything you would like to respond to, get in touch via email.