28th October 2026
From civil servants and council employees to offshore oil workers, the pressure for better pay is spreading. But employers face rising costs, tight budgets and difficult decisions about the future.
The cost-of-living crisis is becoming an increasingly important issue in pay negotiations across Britain. Trade unions are demanding better wages, workers are voting for industrial action, and employers are warning that higher pay must be funded from somewhere.
The disputes range from public services and universities to the North Sea oil and gas industry. Although the circumstances differ, a common question runs through them all: are workers receiving enough to maintain their standard of living after several years of rising prices?
The answer is not straightforward. Inflation may slow, but that does not mean prices return to where they were before. Food, energy, housing and transport can remain substantially more expensive even when the rate of inflation falls. A pay rise that looks reasonable on paper may therefore leave a household feeling little better off.
Civil servants seek to recover lost earnings
The Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) is balloting members across 138 employers between 20 October and 1 December 2026 as part of a national campaign over pay, pensions, jobs and working conditions.
Its demands include a 10% pay remit, an £18-an-hour minimum civil service wage and action to restore the purchasing power lost through years of pay restraint.
The union argues that workers cannot be expected to absorb the effects of rising living costs indefinitely. The dispute also covers job security, pensions and concerns about the future of public services.
These demands are not simply about next year's annual increase. They reflect a wider argument about whether successive pay settlements have left some workers permanently worse off in real terms.
Pressure on councils and the NHS
In Scotland, local government and NHS employees are also important parts of the pay debate.
Council workers provide services ranging from waste collection and road maintenance to social care and administration. NHS staff include nurses, healthcare support workers, technicians and other specialist employees.
Unions want pay awards that protect living standards and recognise the demands placed on staff. But councils and health boards must find the money to meet higher wage bills while also paying for other services, supplies and rising operating costs.
For Highland Council and NHS Highland, this creates a familiar dilemma. A pay settlement may be justified from the employees' perspective, yet still place additional pressure on budgets that are already stretched.
There is also a local economic effect. Workers who receive higher wages have more money to spend in shops, cafés and other businesses. In places such as Wick and Thurso, where public services are important employers, that spending can support the wider community.
The reverse is also true. If public bodies respond to higher wage costs by reducing recruitment, cutting services or delaying investment, other workers and local businesses may feel the consequences.
The private sector faces a different challenge
Private-sector employers must balance wage demands against sales, productivity, competition and profits.
A company with strong growth and healthy profits may be able to afford a substantial increase. A small business facing higher energy bills, rent, insurance and supplier costs may have much less room to manoeuvre.
The same percentage increase can therefore have very different consequences for different employers.
There is also a question about workers earning just above the minimum wage. When the statutory minimum rises, employees who have developed skills or gained experience may find that the gap between their pay and the starting rate becomes smaller. They may then seek increases of their own.
That can create a chain reaction through an organisation's pay structure. Employers must decide whether to increase wages across several grades or allow differences between experienced and less experienced staff to narrow.
North Sea oil workers join the dispute
The oil and gas industry might seem an unlikely place for arguments about financial hardship. Offshore workers often earn more than the national average and possess specialist skills. Their jobs can involve demanding rotations, long periods away from home and responsibility for maintaining complex equipment safely.
Yet higher earnings do not automatically remove disputes over pay and conditions.
In October, more than 160 offshore workers employed by Apache took 24-hour strike action in a dispute involving seven installations associated with the Forties and Beryl fields.
Unite says the company's offer would amount to a real-terms pay cut for some employees, with increases below inflation or no increase at all. The union has also raised concerns about back pay.
Apache has defended its offer of a 4% increase, arguing that it is fair when the wider benefits package is considered. The company has also pointed out that its employees' earnings are already high compared with those of many other workers.
The disagreement illustrates how the same offer can be viewed very differently by the two sides. An employer may consider a 4% increase reasonable, while employees may argue that it fails to compensate for higher prices, previous losses in purchasing power or changes to their employment arrangements.
The dispute also has implications beyond the workforce itself. Unite warned that a shutdown affecting the Charlie platform could disrupt pressure in the Forties Pipeline System, which handles oil and gas from numerous North Sea fields. Apache disputed the likelihood of wider disruption and said it had contingency arrangements.
A further 24-hour strike was scheduled for 4 November, unless progress in negotiations changed the position.
Contractors face disputes over conditions too
The Apache dispute is not an isolated case.
Workers employed by Wood Group on contracts supporting Harbour Energy's offshore installations have also been involved in industrial action over pay and employment conditions.
Unite and the RMT have objected to proposed changes that they say would reduce workers' existing terms and conditions, including the threat of so-called fire-and-rehire arrangements.
These disputes are significant because offshore employment is not confined to the companies that own or operate oil and gas fields. Contractors provide engineering, maintenance and other specialist services, and their employees may face different financial circumstances from those working directly for an operator.
A separate agreement at EnQuest demonstrates that settlements can be reached. Unite reported that workers on the Magnus platform accepted a two-year deal providing an average 9% increase in base salary over the agreement, alongside higher offshore allowances.
The various disputes show that there is no single pay settlement for the North Sea. Each depends on the employer, workforce, contract and terms being negotiated.
The industry's uncertain future
Oil and gas companies are also making decisions against a difficult background. The North Sea contains ageing fields, and operators face choices about further investment, maintenance, production and eventual decommissioning.
Apache plans to leave the North Sea by the end of 2029, while Harbour Energy has also reduced employment and investment. Companies have pointed to the UK's tax regime and wider commercial conditions when explaining their decisions.
This creates a difficult balance. Workers want reasonable pay and secure conditions, while employers argue that they must consider the long-term viability of their operations.
It is important, however, not to confuse the industry's wider difficulties with the merits of an individual pay claim. A company's plans for the future do not automatically establish that its offer is fair, just as a union's demand does not by itself demonstrate that every increase is affordable.
Will higher pay solve the cost-of-living problem?
There are arguments on both sides.
Higher wages can help households manage bills, support consumer spending and make it easier for employers to recruit and retain experienced staff. Where workers have endured years of pay restraint, a larger settlement may also help to repair some of the damage.
But wage increases must be paid for. Businesses may raise prices, reduce profits or cut other costs. Public bodies may need additional funding or face difficult choices about services. If higher wages contribute to persistent inflation, some of the benefit could eventually be lost.
That does not mean pay rises should automatically be resisted. Nor does it mean every claim can be met in full. The question is how to balance workers' living standards, employers' financial circumstances and the wider economic consequences.
For Scotland, and particularly for communities with a substantial public-sector or energy-industry workforce, the outcome matters well beyond the negotiating table.
The cost-of-living debate is no longer simply about the lowest-paid workers. It is about whether wages across the economy can keep pace with everyday expenses, whether employers can afford the increases being sought, and how the country pays for both decent living standards and the services on which people depend.
The coming months will show whether negotiations produce compromises or whether more workers conclude that striking is the only way to make their case heard.