The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)

[StefanAVFC]

6 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I'd have said generally they are held in the same regard by the public as nurses etc

Not a chance. Unless nurses are held in fairly low regard.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

You start on 22,000; far less than most professions you go to uni for (nevermind for 4 years)

Your workload and expectation levels from day one simply aren't worth it.

Ha.

Taking on more responsibilities when you're already working, often, a 60/70 hour week simply isn't worth the few hundred quid a month.

The issue is two-fold but the big issue is getting people into the profession and keeping them there. Experienced teachers are just people who got better at giving up their lives.

That's more than many university students first jobs and regularly, with higher final salaries. In the long run that counts for a lot.
You also don't need to go to University to become a teacher but it's the most recognised route.

I would like to throw a few things in the mix. Teachers not only get more holiday but potentially cheaper childcare and 3 months without it, around £50 a day. Public sector employees are typically on a points system which means they can get pay upgrades as standard and earn more with extra responsibilities. Teachers also have a skill that is internationally recognised (where salaries can be quite high) and many keep their experience points when they move jobs. Their jobs are also fairly secure.

60/70 hour week? I'd kill for one of those plus a teachers salary. But many of us choose the jobs we go into and regularly that is not representative of workload, inflation or living costs.
The workload really is the killer though, it not only needs to be reduced but made more representative of the actual job. Imo that's the biggest problem for teachers and is very unfair. At least my 90+ hour weeks are deliverable projects and not just admin...well....lol

There's also a difference between primary and secondary school teaching, including workload. We need to start teasing out that conversation because it doesn't just impact teachers but teaching itself. A quick look at the academisation of the two (and salary/security potential in each different role) shows you the problem is more complicated than pay and workload.

Edited July 11, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

Quote

Contaminated blood scandal: Theresa May orders inquiry

Inquiry to look into deaths of 2,400 people after thousands were infected with hepatitis C and HIV mostly in 1970s and 80s

Ministers have announced a full inquiry into how thousands of people were infected with hepatitis C and HIV by contaminated blood transfusions, following a long campaign by backbench MPs and pressure groups.

The decision by Downing Street came hours before the government faced possible defeat in a vote on an emergency motion about the need for an inquiry into the scandal that is believed to have contributed to 2,400 deaths.

Theresa May’s spokesman said she and the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, had told the cabinet on Tuesday that an inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal was required.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/11/contaminated-blood-scandal-theresa-may-orders-inquiry

[Xela]

3 hours ago, choffer said:

Aren't fire fighters normally higher up the ladder?

[Rugeley Villa]

Next time it's election time my house is getting kitted out in Tory posters and flags. Not saying I'm going to vote for them, but it will make him at the back of us choke on his tea. 

[ender4]

16 hours ago, snowychap said:

A 1% pay rise would amount to a real terms pay cut whatever the salary.

That it was teachers in the announcement was of less relevance than that an announcement suggested that the pay cap was going to stay.

So teachers have had around a 10% pay increase over the last 10 years, as well as individual pay increases from moving up the pay scale (another 10-20%) 

Meanwhile in private sector, many people have had virtually Nil pay increases over the past 10 years, with some professions having had an overall pay cut during those 10 years.

[markavfc40]

19 minutes ago, ender4 said:

So teachers have had around a 10% pay increase over the last 10 years, as well as individual pay increases from moving up the pay scale (another 10-20%) 

Meanwhile in private sector, many people have had virtually Nil pay increases over the past 10 years, with some professions having had an overall pay cut during those 10 years.

Is it a 10% pay increase over that time? I am not sure. 2011 – 2014 public sector pay was frozen. It is only the last 3 years that it has been capped at 1% so teachers have had a 3% pay increase in the last 7 years. Maybe some in the private sector haven’t had a 3% pay increase over the last 7 years but there will also be some who have had a 15% pay increase over that time.

As for the incremental pay progression some are time served so the more experience you gain in a role the more you will be paid or it is often linked to achieving certain things like gaining extra skills, further qualifications etc.

Overall though this shouldn’t be about playing private sector off against public sector. You start playing that game and you are entering into a race to the bottom. In fact that is exactly the game this Government has played.

[chrisp65]

Can't do the private / public comparison, it's a con to play everyone off against each other.

There are too many weirdo's that need to measure against others for their self worth and are happy earning a pound if they think others are only earning 99p. When we should all be aspiring to help each other to a pound and a penny.

 

[snowychap]

41 minutes ago, ender4 said:

So teachers have had around a 10% pay increase over the last 10 years...

What would a nominal 10% pay increase over the last decade look like in real terms?

The 'individual' increases are not relevant.

When you say 'people' in the private sector, you mean employees in the private sector, don't you? Yep, they've been **** over by their employers in terms of pay, too.

Let's get back to the point, though - it's not about teachers, it's about the policy of public sector pay restraint.

Edit: You can add in the freezing of working-age benefits, too.

Edited July 12, 2017 by snowychap

[darrenm]

13 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Can't do the private / public comparison, it's a con to play everyone off against each other.

There are too many weirdo's that need to measure against others for their self worth and are happy earning a pound if they think others are only earning 99p. When we should all be aspiring to help each other to a pound and a penny.

 

Just a private vs public anecdote. 

I left school at 16, 4 GCSE's (just about), went to work in a shop, now eventually in IT earning almost £50k, with a ~2% pay increase every year doing the easiest job I could possibly think of.

My wife went to university, studied biomedical science, has 2 MSc's, works in the labs of a hospital at the top banding for her senior grade, saves lives every day and night, has crap working conditions and earns about £15k less than me and hasn't had a pay rise for years.

For what she does she should be earning twice as much as me. Whether that means I'm paid too much, her not enough, or the cost of living is too much, I don't know. But from my point of view it's pretty skewed in favour of the private sector.

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

57 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Can't do the private / public comparison, it's a con to play everyone off against each other.

There are too many weirdo's that need to measure against others for their self worth and are happy earning a pound if they think others are only earning 99p. When we should all be aspiring to help each other to a pound and a penny.

Perhaps not a direct comparison but at a granular level I think we should.  Imo avoiding the conversation has helped speed up the race to the bottom for a few reasons.

We don't talk roles or security. Why does the private sector pay so more than the public sector doing the same job, for example in the JobCentre. But in schools, with academies, that's often reversed, unless you're in high level management?
Why does the public sector pay conversation focus on nurses but ignore conversations about mid-level management, and agency staff salaries? And even the benefits they don't get, for example ir35.
Why does affordability not enter into this at all? For example, I mentioned childcare. But you can go even deeper and look at how planning changes have stifled the amount of key worker housing.

This whole debate reminds me of the rise of UKIP. The last thing we want is to ignore a really important conversation for decades until we hit breaking point and the public sector starts dying on its behind......oh wait....

Edited July 12, 2017 by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay

[bobzy]

20 hours ago, itdoesntmatterwhatthissay said:

That's more than many university students first jobs and regularly, with higher final salaries. In the long run that counts for a lot.
You also don't need to go to University to become a teacher but it's the most recognised route.

I would like to throw a few things in the mix. Teachers not only get more holiday but potentially cheaper childcare and 3 months without it, around £50 a day. Public sector employees are typically on a points system which means they can get pay upgrades as standard and earn more with extra responsibilities. Teachers also have a skill that is internationally recognised (where salaries can be quite high) and many keep their experience points when they move jobs. Their jobs are also fairly secure.

60/70 hour week? I'd kill for one of those plus a teachers salary. But many of us choose the jobs we go into and regularly that is not representative of workload, inflation or living costs.
The workload really is the killer though, it not only needs to be reduced but made more representative of the actual job. Imo that's the biggest problem for teachers and is very unfair. At least my 90+ hour weeks are deliverable projects and not just admin...well....lol

There's also a difference between primary and secondary school teaching, including workload. We need to start teasing out that conversation because it doesn't just impact teachers but teaching itself. A quick look at the academisation of the two (and salary/security potential in each different role) shows you the problem is more complicated than pay and workload.

The initial pay scale is very similar compared to "graduate" jobs, but it very, very swiftly falls absolutely miles behind.  Even compared to other non-degree-necessary jobs, teaching pays well initially but with no added benefit.

I have no idea where you're getting 3 months without childcare from?

Also, lol at wanting to "kill" for a 60/70 hour week at £27k/year  

[a m ole]

I don't believe a lot of people who claim to do 80-90 hour weeks. At 90 hrs, you're really working 13 hrs a day, 7 days a week? With the standard holiday days? And your commute on top of that? Nah. One for the things that piss me off thread though.

Edited July 12, 2017 by a m ole

[darrenm]

19 minutes ago, a m ole said:

I don't believe a lot of people who claim to do 80-90 hour weeks. At 90 hrs, you're really working 13 hrs a day, 7 days a week? With the standard holiday days? And your commute on top of that? Nah. One for the things that piss me off thread though.

Luxury

Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing 'Hallelujah.'

[MakemineVanilla]

The question about the UK educational system is whether spending more money on it actually achieves anything.

A report in 2010 found that 20% of school-leavers between 16 & 19 were functionally innumerate and illiterate, which was no better than the 1960s.

Budgets are much bigger and teachers are far better qualified, and the number of teachers increased by 220k between 2005 and 2014.

The number of teachers and support staff grew to 1.3m in the same period, which includes 471k teaching assistants.

Any ideas, why?  

[bobzy]

6 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

The question about the UK educational system is whether spending more money on it actually achieves anything.

A report in 2010 found that 20% of school-leavers between 16 & 19 were functionally innumerate and illiterate, which was no better than the 1960s.

Budgets are much bigger and teachers are far better qualified, and the number of teachers increased by 220k between 2005 and 2014.

The number of teachers and support staff grew to 1.3m in the same period, which includes 471k teaching assistants.

Any ideas, why?  

No idea without looking into it - I take it larger budgets are purely figure-based rather than in real terms?

I imagine some of the reasoning behind illiteracy could be in the way that children grow up.  We've moved from books to PCs/gaming consoles to tablets/iPads etc. as being the main source of entertainment for children.  Personally, I barely ever physically write anything - everything is typed or tapped.  I would imagine that more children watch TV/movies/online blogs than read these days. etc. etc.

[Chindie]

I would be quite suspicious of a report that told me 1 in 5 16 to 19 year olds were 'functionally innumerate and illiterate'. I'd wager that figure isn't correct by a fair old distance and that the terms used are doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

Edited July 12, 2017 by Chindie

[Davkaus]

I'd be very interested in knowing whether the definitions for functionally illiterate and innumerate were the same in 2010 as they were when similar numbers were compiled in the 60s. I suspect not.

[Davkaus]

5 hours ago, ender4 said:

So teachers have had around a 10% pay increase over the last 10 years, as well as individual pay increases from moving up the pay scale (another 10-20%) 

Meanwhile in private sector, many people have had virtually Nil pay increases over the past 10 years, with some professions having had an overall pay cut during those 10 years.

Public or private, if you've stayed in a job with no payrises for a decade, I'd have to question wtf you're thinking. I'd be jumping ship if I went a couple of years or more without inflation matching payrises. 

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

I'd be very interested in knowing whether the definitions for functionally illiterate and innumerate were the same in 2010 as they were when similar numbers were compiled in the 60s. I suspect not.

Exactly.

I'd bet functionally innumerate and illiterate now is a considerably higher bar than 50 years ago. There's no chance that 20% of school leavers in 2010 can't functionally read, write and do some standard maths. None. They might not be particularly good at them, but still they could functionally do it. Actual illiteracy and so on figures will be tiny.