Hundreds of irate UK Parliamentary staffers sue IPSA over 2017 salary spreadsheet publication snafu

Hundreds of Westminster political staffers are suing the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) after it allegedly published their salaries, holiday entitlements, and number of hours worked. News of the lawsuit emerged after London's High Court rejected a bid for anonymity by the staffers. They sued over a March …

[Potemkine!]

When somebody is paid with taxpayers' money for a public service, I find it logical that all the data are made public.

The ones who pay have the right to know how much they pay and what they get in exchange.

Is the deal so shocking that these staffers fear it is made public?

[lglethal]

That's one way to look at it, but another way is to ask the question - would you be happy to have your pay and entitlements made public to all of your neighbours? As well as to all of the scam artists and thieves out there? Complete with your address and the amount of hours you work (a good indication of when they can consider you might not be at home)?

Your neighbours might just complain about the poor state of your fence ("Considering how much money your making, you think could take a bit better care of it, no?") or try to hit you up for a loan.

But the Ne'er do wells out there will pay close attention, when it comes to knowing how much you earn, what you might have in your house, and when your likely to be working. That's ripe conditions for becoming a target.

So yes, knowing how much civil servants earn would be nice from a making sure we taxpayers are getting our money's worth (sorry, I mean how much we're getting shafted by), but for the individuals concerned it carries significant risks if not done carefully and properly.

[elsergiovolador]

Given the cultivated politics of envy and poor implementation of divide and conquer strategies by successive governments, unfortunately you are correct.

If your neighbours knew you make a bit more than average, they'd be out to skin you alive.

I even put a sticker of a leasing company on my car, so that the nosy ones can think I can't afford it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful with the lease sticker if you go on holiday, it's a known magnet for thieves at rest stops who will try to break in looking for valueables.

[Dr Scrum Master]

would you be happy to have your pay and entitlements made public to all of your neighbours?

You would in Sweden, but we're not in Sweden.

Still, it's good to know that people do still do things differently elsewhere.

[Potemkine!]

People who pay me know my address and a lot of personal information about me.

Anyway, I wouldn't have any problem disclosing my pay to my neighbours, as it is not scandalous.

OK, for myself, I think it's scandalously low, but I guess I'm not the only one thinking this about his/her own salary.

[heyrick]

Ditto. The only reason I'd not want my neighbours to know how much I'm paid is because they'd point and laugh.

That said, to follow up on the tiny-village mentality that I mentioned a few days ago in another thread...they probably already know.

I'm employed, I'm paid, I'm not a burden on the social system. That's what's important...

[Tom 38]

I wouldn't want my neighbours to know my address!

[Snowy]

and yet the the high earners at the BBC get theirs made pubic how is this different?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if it gets made pubic it may get hairy.

:)

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like staffers in private firms should have their salaries made available to stockholders. It's a good idea. Also helps employees or prospective employees to ask for equitable remuneration. Let's make it happen!

[elsergiovolador]

Also helps employees or prospective employees to ask for equitable remuneration

That means employees should also have access to company accounting books, otherwise how they can be sure they are actually being paid fairly?

[Anonymous Coward]

A while back when working in the civil service it was made known to me that new starters several ranks below me where earning far more than me, also others with my rank and job description in other civil servant entities where also earning more. My manager’s manager supported me in several equal pay disputes which where all rejected.

After being there 7 years I moved on.

Several subsequent jobs I joined on wages above the roles pay grade, when manager shuffles happened several managers where not happy I was earning more than others and outside their scales, I’ve tended to move on after uncomfortable conversations about why “I didn’t deserve a pay rise or bonus” despite otherwise glowing assessments.

Always always negotiate the best possible salary on taking a new job. Never rely on in band pay rises. Not many businesses want to pay good promotion salaries many will dump you on the bottom or mid rung of the next band despite you originally joining at the top of your band.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agree, it's the reason I spend a time moving jobs every three years, and where the HR question "how much are you earning now?" for a job interview would not be answered, because that game was all about finding out if they could get away with not paying market rate.

In fact, I once terminated an interview because the HR woman would not want to progress without that information. By the time they rang back with an offer I'd already accepted another job.

[keithpeter]

"The ones who pay have the right to know how much they pay and what they get in exchange"

I worked in further education for some decades as a qualified lecturer and (briefly) as a manager. The pay scales are and always have been public, and job adverts for college teaching/management positions sometimes indicate a starting point.

https://www.ucu.org.uk/fescales_england

Is that the kind of thing you meant?

[eldakka]

It's employers who started the trend of making it socially unacceptable to talk about how much we make. Employers don't want staff sharing how much they are paid with each other, because it makes it easier for employers in wage negotiations if no-one knows how much others are getting paid for the same job.

If a new employee is onboarded at a higher rate than employees who have been doing the same job for years are on, then they might demand a payrise to bring them up to the level new staff are being hired at. But that would cost money for the employer.

Employees bargaining position is weakened if they don't know how much others doing the same job, or less skilled work, or more skilled work, are being paid. It's pretty hard to know how much your job is worth, how much you should be asking for, how much you could negotiate, if you have no information on what rates others are getting.

[nijam]

> ... claimants' names and addresses were public information.

Quick, somebody tell GDPR.

[Peter Prof Fox]

The judge is wrong

Fred Smith of 22 Acacia Avenue might be 'harmless', but it's an instant prompt to look up his entry in the wild data. So it's not just the name and address being spread around.

[Captain Hogwash]

Re: The judge is wrong

This! It seemed obvious to me as I read the article.

[Andy The Hat]

Look at the bigger view

Name and address are usually publicly available from multiple sources.

The post occupied and information pertaining to it (JD etc) are/should be publicly available (give or take a few 'secret' jobs) as publicly funded jobs *should* be open to application by all with all pertinent information disclosed at time of application.

The renumeration provided for the post *should* by publicly available as it is paid by the taxpayer and should be subject to financial disclosure.

However, the 'public data' snafu is the linking of person A (public data) to job B (public data)" - the link itself could itself be regarded as personal data ...

Interesting one ...

[graeme leggett]

you might have bloody warned us a link was to Order-Ordee

I can do without giving Paul Staines any semblence of my attention

[Ian Johnston]

Although the judge criticised the PA for its refusal to go along with this demand, it is common sense that you can't avoid naming someone without knowing precisely which names to leave out of reporting.

This has always worried me about superinjunctions. If the existence of an injunction is secret, how do we know what not to say about whom?

[tip pc]

“ If the existence of an injunction is secret, how do we know what not to say about whom?L

Those subject to the super injunction will know the details of what they can’t report so everyone else is in the dark.

[Cynical Pie]

You have to consider what is already public as well

Many of these staffers would be working in MPs offices so the salaries paid would be declared through the accounts etc the MP submits to parliament when claiming their expenses to pay for the staffers.

Also if the job is advertised the salary is in the public domain via the advert.

People also need to realise the salary you are paid is not always personal to you, it goes with the job. What is personal to you is the take home pay after tax, NI and other deductions as this can vary between people on the same salary..

Its even more transparent as a public sector worker as your pay is based on nationally agreed pay-scales which can be found on the internet so if you know a person's job grade (google for their job advert) then you can get a ball park figure for their salary (I'm assuming a 3 or 4 spinal point pay range for a job grade) .