Is anyone else fed up of hearing the underworked public workers (ie I pay their wages) and teachers complaining about pay freezes. Has anyone else had to take a PAY CUT in recent years to keep a job? Anyone else had to go on short time recently with a loss of money? A well quallified and experienced teacher with real work experience to fall back on is a valuable commodity as far as I am concerned, and I d pay them the going rate. Unfortunately, your average teacher is inexperienced in real life and no more than a good parent with 'O' levels. Pay them what they are worth. Local bargaining has to be the way forward. Can you tell me which teacher has the harder gig: a) a comfee little number at a west hull village school where parent participation is widespread, or indeed b) a stessful daily toil at a school on a notorious council estate where the are more often attacked by the parents? Yet the two are paid the same!!!!!
Teachers are very well paid (IMO). I think all public service workers should be paying more into their pensions so I'm not too enamoured with the strikes. I'm not sure how good 67 year old teachers will be in the future! I was planning to go to 65, but I reckon I'd be well past my sell by date at that point!
I think you will find that teachers are not well paid in the slightest. They work excessively hard even when not at school i.e at home working on lesson plans/marking etc. If you counted how many hours work teachers put in each week it would be nearly 80 hours. Most of them get paid around 20k which is not alot considering the effort they put in. it is no wonder so many are forced to retire early due to stress and heart problems. As for those bring up the whole I pay for them arguements, **** off. What would you rather no state schools, would you prefer to pay 3 grand a term to be able to send one child to school. The amount of naivity and myths about public sector workers is frankly insulting. If you knew how bad working conditions and pay are in the public sector I doubt most of you would be so frankly unappreciative.
i went out with a teacher for a bit last year, she was on 30k a year, was never home past 5..and got about 20 weeks holiday a year
They do loads of work from home. Their working day does not stop when they leave school. She most have been head of department or sixth form to be on that. 30k is still not a lot of money when you consider phone monkeys can make that with basic and commision.
lessons finished at 3.30pm, she stayed doing her extra work till 5pm so she didnt have to do it at home, or she did it when the kids where quiet working during the class... so she she was either very good, very **** or just lucky but in the end was a bit of a bunny boiler, so didnt wait to find out
Good job you got rid then. Tbh as much as I respect teachers she does come across as bit of a **** teacher.
thats what the kids who set up a faceboook group about her thought ...to be honest it was a downward course the day she showed me that and i just couldnt stop myself bursting out laughing...
If you do your work at school then you can run a department on a 50 hour week (working roughly 0730 to 1730 each weekday). This evens out to a 40 hour week once you include the 13 weeks holidays. At the top end of the pay scale (and a management allowance for running a department) it's about £45k a year. It's also a very rewarding job (much more fun than accountancy I started off in). Kids are funny. Teaching's a well paid job (IMO). The problem is that, as was originally stated, I get paid the same working in a nice middle class school in a posh area as someone who does the same job on Orchard Park.
What's pissing me off about ALL the strikes is the "we didn't cause the problem so why should we pay" bollocks. The fact is the country is ****ed financially and the people that caused the problem don't have the money to fix it. The government has decided that either we all get hit now with tax rises/benefit cuts/cuts to services (btw, MPs/cabinet ministers/the PM have taken pay freezes or 5% cuts not that the press will report it very widely), or in a few years we get pummelled like Greece because we've allowed it to escalate so it's better to do it now. Basically, if some chav comes along and smashes the window on your car you don't refuse to pay for it to be fixed because you didn't break it. You fix it as soon as possible so that the rain doesn't get in and **** up your interior. Once you've got the situation under control you go after the people that caused it if it's appropriate. And while I'm in ranting mode, the whole "beat the bankers", "bankers bonuses are evil" after we've "given" them money mentality is counterproductive as well. We didn't give them money, we bought huge amounts of the companies so we're shareholders. In order to get a return on our investment we need to make the banks as profitable as possible to drive the shareprice up (and take dividends until we sell once the EU allows them to be paid again), making the jobs crap payers and not allowing bonuses is not the way to do it. As to who should receive the bonuses that's a different matter. People assume "the bankers" are still "the bankers" without any knowledge of the individuals involved (equally I don't know they've changed) because it's just become a collective term. If you have a failing school because of poor teachers you replace them, you wouldn't then say the teachers that come in shouldn't get credit for improving things because the teachers caused it in the first place. NB: As we have a non-political rule on here I should point out that when it comes to government policy I'm neither supporting nor disagreeing with it, I'm saying the objections being made by all the protesting groups are flawed. Everyone is complaining it's not fair and that they're being hit more than anybody else, therefore it's probably fair to say that all the protesting groups are being hit equally because if you were being hit less severely than the rest you'd keep quiet in case someone turned round and highlighted that and you got hit again. Not saying the cuts are fair, they're not, but then neither is the world. Whether you agree with them or not the cuts/tax rises/etc are pretty even, and the extent of them is being exaggerated beyond reality by the media. The protests about unfairness are just nimbyism at it's worst, and it'll be the same people that complain without any intentional irony that the MPs vote for themselves ahead of the national interest.
I have no affiliations to any political party but what I would like to know is this country in the financial mire that the government says it is. If it is how come they are still giving billions away to overseas countries. Surely the government is supposed to look after this country. Another point is the government is cutting pensions etc for the public sector but what are they going to give up in terms of all their own perks which is costing the country millions. The answer is nothing they like their gravy train.
Public v private sector. Kick the doleys. Have a dig at the immigrants... It's all sleight of hand designed to keep the eye off the ball while the rich just get richer and proles build up paranoia about mortgages, debt, terror...
If you mean the money we're 'giving' to places like Ireland and Greece we're making a profit on it. The money to Ireland for example we're borrowing at 3% interest and charging them 5%. Although it increases our debt in raw figures it is a good decision to take because the profit subsisdises some of our existing debt. If you mean the money we're giving in foreign aid I agree with you, I'd like to help people in my family out a bit but I don't have the cash to so I don't. I think (but could be wrong) that the reasoning is that it was an act passed by the previous government that promised x amount of GDP would be given as foreign aid from a certain date, and we don't want to lose our reputation internationally by going back on our word as it could affect future negotiations regarding our debt or trade with other countries. I can understand it from one point of view, but from another if you promised to give your kid some money to help bu a house when they finished uni but then lost your job you wouldn't expect them to hold it against you if you said you couldn't do it anymore. As I mentioned in my last post, all MPs have voted for a pay freeze for two years as it would have been wrong for them to freeze their employees pay whilst receiving a payrise themselves. On top of that, I can't remember if it's all cabinet ministers or just Cameron but there's there's been a 5% cut in pay for the top politician(s). They've also voted through that future pay (after the 2 year freeze) will be determined by an "independent" body rather than them voting on it themselves. Also, I don't know how far they've got with this but aren't they trying to reduce the number of MPs by rejigging and equalising the constituencies (if you look at the difference in the number of seats the Tories got last time compared to Labour the time before with a similar share of the vote)? That would represent a significant saving as a proportion of the costs.
