’We are the forgotten underclass’.

A government worker on a zero-hours contract is demanding to know why she and her colleagues are less deserving of a pay rise that permanent staff and politicians.

Public service unions are currently balloting members on a three-year pay offer for government workers.

The deal mean 3,400 civil servants, government manual workers and Tynwald members receiving an extra £1,062 in the first year, backdated to April.

But it won’t cover the 1,650 or so government workers employed only on zero-hours contracts.

One such worker, who wished to remain anonymous, said ’temporary workers’ such as herself are in reality often permanent staff but without the security of a permanent contract.

Until the recent rise in the minimum wage they were being paid £7.65 per hour, 15p an hour above the old minimum wage of £7.50 per hour.

She said: ’We are now getting £7.75 an hour, or minimum wage, which in real terms means we are on less than we should be if the 15p an hour differential had been retained, and very much less than Tynwald’s much-vaunted "living wage" of £8.61 per hour.

’It therefore grates somewhat to read that government workers are likely to receive a 55p an hour increase, backdated to April and that everyone will receive £1,062 extra a year.

’We are already losing out on pension contributions and paid sick leave, making us much cheaper to employ.

’Taking into account the fact that lower paid permanent workers are to receive a higher percentage increase compared to those on higher pay, that adds insult to injury.’

She added: ’We are the forgotten underclass. How are we any less deserving of a pay rise than the permanent workers we work alongside, or our MHKs? The majority of us will not have union representation to help fight our corner.

’I think questions need to be asked about how many workers are affected by this issue, and how these decisions can be justified.’