1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice
  3. The Teacher Q&A will be closing soon.

    If you have any information that you would like to keep or refer to in the future please can you copy and paste the information to a format suitable for you to save or take screen shots of the questions and responses you are interested in.

    Don’t forget you can still use the rest of the forums on theTes Community to post questions and get the advice, help and support you require from your peers for all your teaching needs.

    Dismiss Notice

Another wee question

Discussion in 'Scotland - education news' started by kibosh, Aug 22, 2011.

  1. kibosh

    kibosh Star commenter

    Could someone please clarify for me how many days you need to have worked in a year to qualify for your incremental rise?
    Also, is it at least one day a week for 26 consecutive weeks, or just at least one day a week for a total of 26 weeks?
    I did try and find this info on the SNCT website, but failed.
    Thank you.
  2. Any 26 weeks in the year. Although don't know how long this will last, they're going to ditch it [​IMG]
  3. Si N. Tiffick

    Si N. Tiffick Occasional commenter

    Ditch what? Surely they can't drop the incremental rise?!
  4. piglet171

    piglet171 New commenter

    Well, in the interests of economy, they could send all teachers back to point 1, like they did with supply teachers, but maybe still pay them for 7 hours to maintain the difference........That might open a few eyes!
  5. Si N. Tiffick

    Si N. Tiffick Occasional commenter

    Can't see it. Hope I'm not proved wrong.
  6. kibosh

    kibosh Star commenter

    Thanks for replies folks. I was certain I was due my incremental rise, but council bungling (they are so good at this) meant that yet again this year, when they looked at peoples service records at the start of the month, mine had some weird nonsense written on it stating that my salary did not need looked at until April 2012 and so they ignored my file. All sorted now.
    If anybody is ever writing a book of fiction or fact and needs some anecdotal evidence of the multiple ways that HR and Payroll can muck someone about, contact me. [​IMG]


Share This Page