Foo
Sorry I didn't realise that the figures were working out quite like that. It is very poor that someone who has been valid a considerable time does not get rewarded for that experience. After all is that not what the pay scale system is meant to be all about?
I like your idea of marking time on the bottom of the scale until validation, it makes sense. That is probably why the powers that be have not adopted it! The only pitfall I can see is where on the pay scale would you expect to enter after validation?
If you only increased to the next point then I wonder if you would in actual fact be any better off. The "unfairness" would also continue in some people's eyes. Consider the following two examples:
Person A successfully validates in February. In March pay they have moved up one scale point. In April they will then get the annual increment. So in the 2 months after validation they will have gained two scale points.
Person B successfully validates in March. In April they will move up one scale point but would probably not be given an additional scale point as they were already recieving an increment.
So Person B, although the difference in validation dates could be days,possibly through no fault of their own, will always be a point behind even though they have similar experience. No justice there, I think you will agree.The only consolation would be that, as you said on your original post, that you would be on the same pay scale as the next person doing the same job.
I know it was only an idea, and I am NOT knocking it. You are right that the system should be continuously improved, but look how long it took to settle the pay deal! You will probably be worrying about how much you'll get to retire early before it gets sorted!!Plus ca change mais le meme chose!
(Apologies to french scholars everywhere)
------------------
To infinity and beyond