# data[].attributes.body
I wanted to share my personal feelings of being undervalued in the new salary structure proposal, and express how it's been sad to see and hear that discontent for this proposed salary restructure by some is being perceived as personal discontent towards those who are set to benefit the most. It feels like having these conversations is exactly the role of a union, to build a collective position that can push for the benefit to all. To geneneralise and call out professional staff as being anti-senior fellow, feels extremely damaging and unhelpful to what I perceive as the shared cause of working in an institute with contented staff across the board who feel valued in their roles. I think the fact that our union consistently voted to continue the USS dispute, and to lose pay etc by striking, even though this was of no direct benefit to many of those who were part of union, demonstrates how this solidarity has been shown in the past.

I highly appreciate the level of work and expertise it takes to become a senior fellow, and how important these experts are for generating new knowledge and in keeping IDS going as an institute. I also highly appreciate the level of work and expertise it takes to manage the projects that facilitate the great, groundbreaking work that researchers are doing. I love how IDS works in this way on so many projects, and have personally really appreciated how this allows for both researchers and professional staff to work closely with one another. I think this is a great asset and usp of IDS that I believe warrants a more equitable salary structure that rejects the standard market model where professional staff are undervalued.

# data[].attributes.body
https://forms.office.com/e/eyhT4Xnahw

Open until April 15th

# data[].attributes.body
I have a few suggestions of things I would like to see, from a number of staff who often get to the top of their pay scale:

I would like to suggest that the RO1/2 model that has now also been suggested for KIP, is rolled out Institute wide, across all roles. E.g. New Project Managers could start on the new grade 5 and move up to the new grade 4 dependent on length of service (and performance). This would help to retain staff, knowledge and experience in all areas.

Senior Programme staff (Hub Managers and Programme Managers of large Programmes) should be able to get up to the new Grade 2 (at least).

Role Development opportunities for Programme staff to be able to get into grade 3 without necessarily being a Programme Manager.

My two/three pennies from a Programme point of view :-).

# data[].attributes.body
I’m not sure if I can articulate this very well, but I think it’s important to consider, as we’re having discussions about job descriptions, salary structures, employment benefits, and the FRPB, where the grade ceilings currently are and what the employment benefits are for those outside the FRPB process.

Looking at the FRPB guidelines, it seems there is some cross-over with the core requirements for promotion with what is done by people who aren’t part of the FRPB process, for example: raising funds for others, mentoring, involvement in teaching, producing research outputs. My understanding is that KIP and PMU staff (minus KIP manager and Hub Managers) are unable to progress beyond grade 7, with progression from grade 6 to 7 requiring a line/team management role to open up. It therefore feels to me that the responsibilities deemed important when reviewing ROs/fellows for promotion from grade 7-10 are different or aren’t recognised in the same way for those outside the FRBP process.

In addition, new starters who are outside the remit of the FRPB process aren't offered the USS pension whereas other staff are, which I think compounds this disparity in the perceived value of work done by different parts of the institute and quite starkly creates a two-tiered system of benefits. For the record I don’t think promotions should be determined in this way, as it places greater value on certain types of knowledge and one person’s work over another, but if it is being used for one part of the institute, I think that similar work should be valued (and rewarded) in the same way across the institute.

# data[].attributes.body
I am adding this from UCU comms WhatsApp so all can see what the salary restructuring, and "everyone gets a pay rise" actually looks like.

# data[].attributes.body
Equalise targets so all Fellows ROs and KIP staff are on 180 days

# data[].attributes.headline
An ask! Equity and transparency in proposal writing

# data[].attributes.subject
An ask! Equity and transparency in proposal writing

# data[].attributes.body
At the moment Fellows can just put people into bids as they see fit. I am suggesting a Standard check as part of PRGs for proposals e.g above 200k that equitable distribution of time between Senior/Junior/Fellows ROs has been factored in. Cluster leaders should be asked do a sanity check on proposals going out from their Cluster to ensure e.g.

There is adequate time for less senior researchers.

Fellows/ROs with Workpoint deficits are included.

This would mean more giving more WPs to Cluster Leaders to do this work. We should be adding notion of equity in proposals to our considerations in PRG. It doesn't have to be Cluster Leaders doing this - but I think it would be a way to strengthen their management role/responsibilities.

# data[].attributes.body
In the meeting the point was raised that comparable staff at RG universities are awarded inflated and distorted salaries due to REF submissions. But as IDS does not submit to the REF, can we ask SLG what the specific metrics are for justifying distorted HE salaries at IDS? What are our expectations of senior fellows in an IDS context that justifies similar awards?

# data[].attributes.body
Progression for professional staff and non fellows needs quite urgent attention. There still lacks a clear pathway of advancement for PMU staff, what progression there is often stalls at grade 6. I was quite surprised to hear that professional staff were paid higher or at the market value. I know several colleagues who have left IDS for vastly higher salaries and have seen roles similar sectors to IDS (charity, public and dev sectors) advertised at much higher rates.

I'm not suggesting that IDS can be everything everyone wants all of the time but, I think we need to keep equality, equity and compassion at the forefront of this process.

We all work incredibly hard and deserve an institute where we feel valued and supported. Sadly this is not how things are at the moment and to be honest I've been quite nervous to share my thoughts here.

I hoping we can all move forward with kindness and solidarity.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the emails saying “everyone is getting a pay rise” when in fact most people are seeing very little increases (maybe less than £100 per year) other than top grades (who are getting a massive increase) is misleading. So can we please ask management to be more honest?

# data[].attributes.body
For many of us professional staff who are reaching the end of grade 6 (and arguably will reach it sooner than expected if bands are shorter), I feel dismayed and exhausted by the suggestion that the only way to progress is to take on management responsibilities. I feel that this is utterly lacking creativity. People leave IDS for progression elsewhere, why can't we offer this progression?

# data[].attributes.body
I completely agree with the concerns that have been raised around equity, transparency and lack of job progression for non-fellows.  I am mainly feeling very saddened by this process and the stark contrast between what we say in our external work and teaching, and what is happening internally in our organisation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Suggested arguments and requests to take back to management (Jo C)

# data[].attributes.subject
Suggested arguments and requests to take back to management (Jo C)

# data[].attributes.body
Benchmarking researchers against Russell group salaries, and professionals against south east rather than Greater London salaries may have created (or perhaps reproduced) a problematic inequity from the outset.

However, that said, benchmarking is just one aspect that should inform pay. Another key factor is value to the organisation, which (if we’re not in the business of demanding systemic change to workplace organisation) has to be measured by performance. Is there any data that suggests the highest grades contribute the most to the organisation and therefore should be rewarded in line with this, eg disproportionately in relation to other staff? If so, can the union be shown this data? Data exists showing that KIP cluster-led projects brought in more than any other single cluster last year. Does that mean we should increase KIP salaries to a greater extent than other clusters? I would obvs argue against that as the point of this reward review is to generate a better shared understanding of who/what is currently undervalued by the institution and to adjust salary scales to redress this imbalance.  IDS needs to pause and consider the basis on which the existing salary scale proposals have been offered.

(A) If the reward review is primarily about retention then it should be about retention across the board, not just for the highest grades. Why would IDS increase grade 9 and 10 by the greatest proportion, offering the highest salaries available in the market, and leave everyone else on the same, slightly less or slightly more based on an average of what’s offered from organisations located in the south east, not even in London? This is despite London being an easy commute and where mist staff who leave end up working.

For example, most alternative MEL jobs are remote/global or in London and they pay more. MEL professionals frequently leave IDS for those jobs. Is there really evidence that our highest paid researchers frequently  leave IDS for Russell group universities?  If so can the union be shown that data? If this data doesn’t exist, why is the whole proposition based on retaining higher grades?

(B) If the reward review and the proposed salary scales should not just be about retention, then on what basis should they be proposed? And what should we expect them to deliver? Was the reward review set up to address issues of retention for the highest paid staff? No. It was set up to address issues of retention, and feelings of being undervalued and overworked that impact wellbeing for all grades.  For lower grades and professionals this was linked to lack of career progression, and unfair remuneration for levels of work (eg performance) expected. Sight of this seems to have been completely lost by management.

The union can’t  negotiate blind and agree a salary scale proposal with unclear implications for its members, and one that doesn’t appear to address any of the key concerns behind the reward review in the first place. What is currently proposed is a basic alignment of IDS salaries with an inequitable HE market, potentially compounded by biased benchmarking.

We aren’t part of the REF and have much more freedom than other academic institutions to create an institution that values and remunerates different sorts of experience and knowledge. But this opportunity will be squandered unless there is more transparency from management  around how and on what basis decisions about what is proposed have been made.

Greater openness is needed to support a dialogue around both what IDS as a collective whole and union members, want the new salary structure to deliver. Although we might not be able to  agree on details due to differing personal interests, we can and must agree on the principles that should be guiding the decisions and proposals. Management’s lack of transparency is currently making an open discussion on this impossible. Fundamental issues around which staff are valued and which are not remain unresolved, and this may be resulting in poor decision making.

The IDS reserves that will fund the changes to pay belong to everyone at IDS and are the result of collective effort. It is fair and just that any changes to pay benefit everyone at IDS equitably.

One could argue not just that the salary structures proposed are unlikely to fairly value staff on the basis of their collective contribution to the organisation, but that they are also the result of unexamined value  judgements and assumptions about who is important to IDS and who is not.

Can the union request:

(1) information to be provided on how and on what basis decisions have been made to arrive at the two proposed salary scales.

(2) an open dialogue between management and staff on the principles that should be guiding decisions and proposals.

# data[].attributes.body
I studied at IDS and learnt a great deal from many of the inspiring senior fellows and academic staff that work here. I now work alongside those same people as a professional staff member and to read some of the comments on this padlet truly saddens me. It also makes me question the fundamental core values of what IDS professes to stand for and teach its students.

I'm sure that the comments here aren't representative of most fellows' views at the institute and I'd like to hope that some of the points laid out were perhaps written in haste or without proper reflection on how they may come across. Nonetheless, sometimes the complete disconnect with that which is taught and the way we interact and value each other within the institute is astounding to me.

Perhaps as others have said it would bode well for all of us to take a minute, breathe and reflect on our own and others positions and perspectives within the institution, on this topic and the many others we collectively are working towards. Notwithstanding the comments made here that IDS academics could manage without professional staff, at the end of the day, it is all of us that make up this institute. We all work together and will continue to work together. It is down to all of us to decide what kind of institute we want to be, to consider the power of our words and reflect on what values we want to truly embody.

One of the most important skills I learnt when studying here was to take time to reflect on my own power and perspectives. I don't mean this comment to be perceived as an attack on senior fellows or academic staff but a call instead for all of us to reflect upon and consider our own power within the institute and how we choose to view and value our colleagues that make up this organisation.

# data[].attributes.body
If the funding for these pay rises comes from pensions or reserves, why is the decision here that those savings should largely go to the already highest paid staff? Why would they not be distributed equitably? How can a union possibly support such a proposal?

# data[].attributes.headline
disagreement response, re re re, a few more thoughts

# data[].attributes.subject
disagreement response, re re re, a few more thoughts

# data[].attributes.body
I am going to come in here un-anonymously simply because my name and the work I've been trying to do in the position of H&S rep has been mentioned in a recent post. So this is Erica. I have been following all of these padlet remarks and separate whataspp and teams conversations from a far distance to IDS. I've been in South Africa this week engaged in a 'futuring' workshop on research for development, talking about (not just me but everyone here) transforming research for development from a standpoint of care, empathy, and the potential to radically transform how we work. It has been like a kind of whiplash to go from these spaces in SA of open inquiry, and trust, and thoughtful conversation, and people working in genuine collaboration to address complex challenges, to then engage here with a process that seems to be surfacing all of the already-existing tensions in our institution and some of our ugliness. The truth is that what the H&S work has revealed to me - in my opinion - is that we are sick. Not just sick in a physical sense (though for some people that is true) but also sick in a different kind of way (call it what you will depending on your belief system). As a union I really believe we need to approach this process of discussion and negotiation putting the last first, just like we say we do in our work out in the world. Who will these changes benefit? Will they benefit everyone equally? If they don't, what risks are we taking in accepting these changes? What kind of institution are we saying that we want to be? Are we - in this conversation itself - creating harms for others that might not be easily repaired? This is what is weighing on me right now. I don't have answers but I wanted to raise the questions.

# data[].attributes.body
The two main things I would like more clarity on are:

ration between lowest and highest paid staff and how this is justified.

percentage of staff at IDS in each band ( I know we have number of roles, but that doesn’t help understand the overall make-up of IDS staff)

# data[].attributes.headline
Responding to the paper, which says (of the UQ): '19 other roles, specifically in the professional services area, have been found to be in a higher position than the current hierarchy, reinforcing the contribution these roles make to IDS. Our current grade 8&9 have both moved to band 2, reflecting the contribution senior professional staff make at this level.'

# data[].attributes.subject
Responding to the paper, which says (of the UQ): '19 other roles, specifically in the professional services area, have been found to be in a higher position than the current hierarchy, reinforcing the contribution these roles make to IDS. Our current grade 8&9 have both moved to band 2, reflecting the contribution senior professional staff make at this level.'

# data[].attributes.body
Does this speak to historic undervaluing of these roles at IDS?

# data[].attributes.body
Point 9(g) says:

"A consultation will be held on the removal of the JD for grade 7 Fellows, with a view to ringfencing this group whilst our current grade 7 Fellows are in place. This is to recognise the new role of Researcher 2, Post Doctorate Researcher and grade 7 Fellow will be at the same band, and needing a more streamlined career ladder"

I'd like to hear a clarification on what this point means, specifically, what does a 'streamlined' career ladder mean?

Is the implication that the concept of a 'junior' or 'entry-level' fellow is being abolished in favour of Researcher 1/2 and Post-doc in new band 4 and Fellows in new bands 3 and above?

And what does 'ringfencing' a group of current grade 7 fellows mean?

# data[].attributes.body
I realise that this question takes us back to a previous step in the process, but: I don't understand why the three principles 4, 5 and 6 have been adopted. Even if these have been announced previously (e.g. in the presentation of 23rd Feb), I haven't really seen a compelling reasoning to justify these principles.

(By contrast, principles 1-3, 7, and 8 speak probably speak for themselves; whereas the principal motivation for the whole process seems to be a concern that IDS's salary scales have fallen out of line with the market, especially at the top.)

So: Why should IDS have 8 bands? Why should the bands have only 5 points, and why should the bands not overlap? I'd like to hear compelling justifications for these principles.

Along related lines: Why remove the discretionary points at the tops of bands? Is that only to respect principle 6 (no overlap between bands)? No other reason? This seems important to clarify, because it is on this principle that the proposal no longer to allow consolidated discretionary bonus payments is based. It could exacerbate the problem of people getting stuck at the top of bands. That could have a negative impact on motivation and retention.

# data[].attributes.body
What happens to discretionary increments while the salary structure is being discussed? Could people who are currently at the top of their grade and hoping to get a discretionary increment miss out while the discussions are ongoing?

# data[].attributes.headline
Adding to 'disagreement response' and 're re re'

# data[].attributes.subject
Adding to 'disagreement response' and 're re re'

# data[].attributes.body
The comments entitled 'disagreement response' and 're re re' articulate well my concerns - so, echoing and underlining those comments, and adding to them here.

Those of us who take a critical approach to development studies emphasize the devastating effect of 'buzzwords' and 'empty signifiers' in re-entrenching power dynamics globally. I am sad to say that I believe we see this dynamic play out at an institutional level time and time again. This is being revealed incredibly starkly through this process, which also now appears to be adding to an already divided and stressed-out labour force as a result. How could increasing pay for the top earners, while adding to the workloads of those 'below' - at the same time as they are 'red-circled' - possibly produce an 'equitable, sustainable, and resilient institution'? In this context, these appear nothing but empty buzzwords, hollowing out their political power - and, rather, come across as somewhat gaslighting in their effect.

As others have mentioned, modelling pay against HE is incredibly flawed - if the aim is an 'equitable, sustainable and resilient institution', why would we choose a pay structure that has precipitated countless strikes, because it is so inequitable? To suggest, after years of the 4fights struggles, that this would be a 'good' model to follow without question or critique jars. Moreover, to suggest that such critiques are an attack on senior staff serves to silence legitimate critiques that are instead directed at structural (neoliberal) failures - rather than targeted at individuals.

As I read it, there have not been 'negative attitudes about senior fellows', more - and rightfully so - negative attitudes at the incredibly flawed, inequitable, and unjust neoliberal academic-industrial complex - within which IDS is, has been, and seemingly will remain, entirely complicit and entangled. In so doing, we, as a labour force, question power inequalities that manifest materially external to IDS, yet we are entrenching them 'at home' - these are then packaged as 'good for everyone' in professed endeavours toward 'equity'. Meanwhile, concerns about this process are being interpreted as 'negative attitudes toward senior fellows', which has a silencing effect - as many of us have no desire to exacerbate the divides in an already strained and stressed workforce.

Following from this, I'd like to note the very damaging suggestion that fellows could do their work just fine without professional or admin staff. This is, quite simply, untrue - and a fairly disgraceful opinion to air in a public forum. Let's keep focussed on the power of a union as a forum for collective action - let's direct our energy and critique toward what is further atomizing and dividing us - the inequalities entrenched within neoliberal capitalism, and the cost of living crisis that differently affects us all as a result. We all hoped this process would serve, in some small way at least, to remedy that - so, we should continue to work together toward that goal.

Finally, I am incredibly concerned about the disregard with which the work Erica has been doing as H&S rep has been received by management: it is entirely relevant to this conversation and must be considered comphrensively - especially if day rates and targets are to increase to pay for this revised salary structure. Through dedicated, democratic, and meticulous work, she has powerfully illustrated that overwork, burnout, and stress are far from individual concerns among those of us who are less 'resilient' (which, as social scientists, many of us know is often used as a glib word to shift the burden on the individual to tolerate the intolerable/unjust). Rather, her surveys have revealed that overwork, and the mental and physical effects of burnout, are endemic to IDS (considering workplace culture and patterns, it is important to note that this work, which pointed to the embodied effects of the structural, was deemed 'disrespectful' - a pattern echoed in this forum). If day rates are to increase, and targets are too potentially, then this process and related prospective changes will exacerbate an already dire situation - that of a burnt out, stressed out, drained workforce.

In sum, it is very important to think about this process holistically, structurally and contextually, in view of endemic excessive workloads, structural inequalities and power hierarchies within the HE system and beyond - that we know are material in effect - and keep focussed on our professed aims of equity and justice - beyond buzzwords. If not, I would rather management do not use these words, and hollow out their political potential. Moreover, let's work on this as a union - collectivised in our struggle - valuing everyone's labour as necessary, good and worthwhile of fair remuneration.

# data[].attributes.body
It’s really interesting to work in a progressive development think tank and experience a push by the top cadre of the highest paid staff for greater pay for themselves, who then threaten to leave when their demands are not met.

It really strikes a lot of parallels with claims of wealth flight due to prospects of equitable taxation. These along with dismissing the labour of the professional staff as ‘helpful’ but not ‘necessary’ and just good for the stress of senior staffs is really on point with many tropes the rich and powerful have as to the source of value in society.

I thought these concepts were basic knowledge to development experts. I’m sad see them repeated as arguments for further inequality in IDS.

# data[].attributes.body
in response to the previous two comments, can we possibly try to remember we are in a union. That means we act collectively for the good of all. This isn’t a lobbying group for high-grade staff. Declaring that you do not require the labour of others, devaluing their contribution, etc is not (in my opinion) comradely behaviour. This will contribute towards the bad environment emerging as a result of this paper. It also contravenes some of the broader campaigns at UCU, including 4fights. Which, while we are not in it directly, given we are modelling our salary on an already highly unequal pay structure, is certainly relevant to this discussion.

Saying there is no inequity because we have modelled pay against HE is a bit wrongheaded considering our own union campaigns against the notorious gross inequities in higher education pay. Let’s be honest and frank about this.

The previous comment from a professional staff member was not (as I read it) asserting that fellows are not needed, but that the work of all contributes towards the success of IDS and that IDS functions collectively. I think saying in response actually you’re not needed we are grateful but we’d just be “slow” to that is a little unhelpful. Comrades, please try to think about what this push to reward the most all those at the top will mean for all our working lives and institute relationships.

I also find the vague use of “threats to leave” (in essence) unless senior pay increases also disheartening. This is while I am personally hearing from members of staff who are seriously looking for other jobs as a result of this process. Many are extremely distressed and feel extremely undervalued. And these colleague are the ones who are actually most exposed to the cost of living crisis.

I know that if those staff leave, with their “good work” and institutional knowledge, we will all be worse off. So please, try not to inflame the situation with careless language and objectives that are not (in my humble opinion) that of a union but a specific 9-10 group.

I think some of this we can say is due to the lack of clarity in the paper and the poor way it’s been handled. But that doesn’t change the basics of what is being proposed here and how it must appear to people like other comments have all said now.

As a union we must act collectively. Again, this is not a lobbying group for high-paid staff so please take seriously the concerns of lower grades rather than saying “we could survive without you just it would be slower.” In fact, at IDS do we not advocate for “putting the last first”? — I see a great deal of concern for the “first” and not so much for the “last”

# data[].attributes.body
The salary review found that IDS pays most staff members well and better than comparable places, especially at the lower and middle range. The discrepancy was more at the higher end which is why the consultants were brought in to do the comparison.

PSOs, ROs, Admin do great work and should be rewarded appropriately. There is no issue about this.

some of the points raised by you are quite disconcerting - On academics and senior staff not managing without admin and professional staff.. Actually, they could. Everything would just take longer and be more stressful but academics in other places (incl UoS) don't have the same level of support, and also manage with proposals , budgets, teaching admin etc.. (but they don't have the same pressure re workpoints/ fund raising). Some of us have done all this work without support at other places before coming to IDS.

IDS academics would learn/ need to manage. It's due to the work point structure and other IDS specific constraints (ie having no core funding at all) that we need to have such support in place for those who need to raise income.

It is terrific, we are grateful and mostly things go well & we all work together as a team and we are one Institute. the Union has also helped bring us together and be a glue and create solidarity. But I think it's not entirely correct to say that that senior staff wouldn't manage at all without admin and other support.

I appreciate that the honesty with which these concerns are raised though, and it's good that we have this space in the Union

To play the devil's advocate : if senior academics were not there at all and didn't teach/ do research & lead proposals, what would IDS look like?

# data[].attributes.body
I think a lot of the confusion and upset comes from the fact that a senior group of staff led this incredibly difficult consultation throughout a difficult period for the institute but ultimately the result appears as if they are only rewarding their cohorts.

I think it is also a problem to claim that we are rewarding 'good work' and retaining 'talent' when we raise the salaries of mostly senior staff members. I work in a professional role and I consider my work 'good' - I see many PSOs, ROs, and Admin staff who do amazing work and go above and beyond the work of many other professionals at other institutions. They must be also rewarded.

Academics and senior staff can't do their job without us, and the point of a union is to make that relationship clear.

# data[].attributes.headline
dismayed by the negative attitudes to senior fellows 

# data[].attributes.subject
dismayed by the negative attitudes to senior fellows 

# data[].attributes.body
I am surprised/ dismayed by some of the negative attitudes here about senior fellows. It goes back a while and if this continues, senior fellows will either leave and also stop mentoring others and leading proposals, having implications for IDS as a whole including professional staff and others.. Everybody counts and everybody's labour counts, but is it wise to constantly bash fellows/ senior fellows? Not to deny the issue of equity and this is very important, but rewarding people for their good work and keeping in sync with the wider UK HE community, is not inequitable imho

# data[].attributes.headline
I think the document is not easy to follow which is why there is so much confusion. It also conflates the salary benchmarking for senior fellows & also the issue of re-grading across staff.  The former was to do with retaining and recruiting senior fellows, something that has been difficult,  & also to keep in sync with the wider UK HE sector.  We need to use the wider UK university sector as a benchmark - despite what some people here have commented.                                             

# data[].attributes.subject
I think the document is not easy to follow which is why there is so much confusion. It also conflates the salary benchmarking for senior fellows & also the issue of re-grading across staff.  The former was to do with retaining and recruiting senior fellows, something that has been difficult,  & also to keep in sync with the wider UK HE sector.  We need to use the wider UK university sector as a benchmark - despite what some people here have commented.                                             

# data[].attributes.body
Why were there 'specific meetings with our grade 9 and 10 Fellows'?

# data[].attributes.headline
For those being 'green circled', the pay increase might also mean tax increase such that income in hand does not change much. Is that a possibility? 

# data[].attributes.subject
For those being 'green circled', the pay increase might also mean tax increase such that income in hand does not change much. Is that a possibility? 

# data[].attributes.body
What considerations of equity have been taken into consideration? And what mitigation measures are in place to prevent a toxic working environment? How will HR safeguard against this worsening workload for those who will see the least reward?

# data[].attributes.headline
A salary structure that better reflects an equitable and collegial working culture

# data[].attributes.subject
A salary structure that better reflects an equitable and collegial working culture

# data[].attributes.body
It is really hard to know how either of the two proposals will affect me or others in my job role without knowing where specific jobs 'land' on the new bands. More importantly, I agree with the previous post that this proposal is lacking in hollistic and creative solutions to the common issues experienced at IDS that go beyond monthly paychecks. For example, it appears to me that a few powerful individuals have been able to put pressure on SLG and HR to retain the incentives scheme (although it looks like they are rebranding this as the 'Surplus Earning Scheme') while I believe the majority of staff at IDS find the scheme unfair. Furthermore, the upper quartile idea seems to be creating greater pay imbalances in the long run between lower grade staff (the new 1-3s) and higher grade staff (8-4). Those on lower salaries often spend a larger portion of their salary on basics - rent, food, transport, so this will have a disporportionate effect on them. The proposal also doesn't adequately address issues of professional grades lacking opportunity for advanced promotion. Nor does the proposal suggest ways in which staff can be rewarded and motivated beyond salary - I think there were previous discussions around sabbaticals, leave of absence, etc. which do not appear in the paper.

# data[].attributes.body
They mentioned that 'gender and race' (not the gender pay gap, which was an additional point) had been a factor in their modelling, but what does this actually mean? Also, 'race' was in the presentation, but 'ethnicity' is used in the paper they shared.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the previous comment entirely on rates and reserves. I am quite alarmed at the idea that our day rates might increase, which will have several knock-on effects like 1) increasing the amount of work we do without remuneration; 2) increasing intolerable levels of stress that already exist; and 3) generating a greater divide between researchers and professional staff, harming relationships and morale. The entire proposal strikes me as a significant transfer of wealth to the very top at IDS. I find, in the paper, the reference to the cost of living crisis quite distasteful in this regard. We know that the CoL crisis falls hardest on renters and those with new mortgages. This means predominantly colleagues in the lower and middle of the salary structure. While we should welcome an increase in wages to those least paid at IDS I believe current proposals will result in a "hollowing-out" of those in the middle (6/7/8s), who will be red-circled or have no actual increase in wages. If an increase at the top is then being funded by more intolerable workloads it feels like IDS has taken the worst ideals of neoliberalism (in an already neoliberal model) and intensified them further. This was an entirely predictable outcome given that pay structures were modelled not against our professed "values" at IDS but against largely the HE sector, which has some of the most distorted pay structures in Britain. I also find references to "talent" and the necessity of "high wages" to attract and maintain talent quite offensive and invalidating (thankfully not in the paper but often discussed throughout this process). In sum, I worry these proposals will produce quite a toxic working environment and urge people to assess them with that in mind (how will this all look?).

# data[].attributes.body
New increased day rates are being used in contracts for 24/25 yet the proposed salary structures has not been agreed. Could management explain how rates for 24/25 are being managed in this period?

# data[].attributes.body
costs to honour salary increases arising out of proposals should come from reserves , not overburden already stressed researchers . Do we know how they propose to fund the new proposals ?

# data[].attributes.headline
go for upper quartile idea, but with costs coming from reserves and NOT from our increased day rates

# data[].attributes.subject
go for upper quartile idea, but with costs coming from reserves and NOT from our increased day rates

# data[].attributes.body
I think that we should push for IDS to become an upper quartile employer, by accepting the Upper quartile rates (and the lowest number of red circles therefore).

HOWEVER, I do think that we can push back on the costs for this upper quartile employer proposal to NOT fall on the shoulders of those with income targets. Higher rates can be offset easily by the gains made by the pensions gains that IDS has made just in the last year - with the reduction of employer contributions that was projected and agreed by the Board. Another way to offset these higher rates would be to take these costs from the reserves, which, if I understood it right, is a very small proportion from our existing reerves.

ANY other solution of pushing these rates down the backs of those who generate revenue will actually create even more workload stress, burn out and diminished well-being - which is not feasible to sustain for our morale.