31st March 2009, 03:07 PM
Kevin, just to clarify, I've already said that there were increased costs to the employer, no-one is arguing that. What Peter said in his original post however was that there had been
When challenged about what these 'huge increases' were Peter provided figures in a very misleading fashion, and which do not relate to the 'increases for archaeologists', rather to an increase in cost for employers. They are indeed related, and do have knock on effects to each other, but they are not the same thing. I agree with you both re potential costs, but that wasn't the question he was asked. And anyway, the extra cost is only additional above the existing rates of leave/sick/pension, which for nearly all archaeologists were not zero.
As you say, the actual headline increase to pay minima was about 3%. Hardly 'Huge'?
Quote:quote: huge increases for archaeologistswithout qualifying that statement or providing any supporting data. You can't expect to make such claims without evidence.
When challenged about what these 'huge increases' were Peter provided figures in a very misleading fashion, and which do not relate to the 'increases for archaeologists', rather to an increase in cost for employers. They are indeed related, and do have knock on effects to each other, but they are not the same thing. I agree with you both re potential costs, but that wasn't the question he was asked. And anyway, the extra cost is only additional above the existing rates of leave/sick/pension, which for nearly all archaeologists were not zero.
As you say, the actual headline increase to pay minima was about 3%. Hardly 'Huge'?