Strike sympathy , not me

[antony1969]

Teachers , Good pay , Weekends off , School holidays off , Sick pay , Time off for marking through the day and still a great pension deal . Must be truly awful ! . Am setting off for work myself in a minute and if there outside my local school waving there placards and wanting ya to honk ya horn in support then am going straight on pavement for em in me van . Watch this space .

[CliveH]

Whoa! Anthony –keep your vehicle on the road mate !

 

Much lies and misinformation about what the changes are all about.

 

1) Public sector being forced to work till 66 – Ah! Bless – they still want to retire on a full pension at 60 – of course I don’t mind my taxes being used to pay for this – in fact I will willingly carry on working into my late 60’s early 70’s to pay the tax to enable them to have this wonderful feather bed retirement.

 

2) It really is unfair that the public sector employees should be asked to pay anymore than the current circa 6% deduction from salary to help pay for the actual cost to the taxpayer of 20%. I will willingly pay that 14% via the taxes that I pay even if that means that overall I pay more money into other peoples pensions than that which the average private sector worker can afford to pay into his own pension pot.

 

3) And as for the change to Average Salary rather than Final Salary, well this will hit the high paid individuals who crank up their salary in the last years of their working life (well - to age 60) but will not affect people the low paid Public Sector at all because their salaries do not tend to have the later years “spike” so beloved of the Public Sector “fat cats”. In fact – if the NHS changes are anything to go by, the new average salary scheme is based upon 60ths rather than 80ths!! – And so someone working for 30 years under the new scheme will enjoy a pension of 30/60ths of their average salary rather than a pension of 30/80ths of their final salary.

 

And of course – if for any reason your salary drops in your latter years then the average salary calculation is much fairer!

 

So no wonder the public sector is so upset – they still will have a good scheme – better than anything in the Private Sector, the majority of the cost paid for by the tax payer, they will have to work the same time length as everyone else and the scheme is unfunded, paid for out of taxes, which means that the vagaries of market performance and annuity interest rates are things they need not worry their pretty little heads about.

 

Ah bless indeed – a rude awakening awaits!

 

[donna miller]

antony1969 - 2011-06-30 6:58 AM

 

Teachers , Good pay , Weekends off , School holidays off , Sick pay , Time off for marking through the day and still a great pension deal . Must be truly awful ! . Am setting off for work myself in a minute and if there outside my local school waving there placards and wanting ya to honk ya horn in support then am going straight on pavement for em in me van . Watch this space .

 

Tell that to my daughter.

 

Good pay.................. yes if you apply the rate to a 40 hr week, and disregard marking homework, planning lessons, after school activities etc at nights ( dont forget, no overtime on a salary)

Weekends off............only if you mean they don't go into the classroom.

School Holidays off............apart from running extra tuition, attending training courses.etc. etc. etc.

 

Many private and public sector workers enjoy 40+ days leave especially if they get bank holidays in addition to the minimum 28 days required by law. If you equate 40 days to weeks thats 8 working weeks a year plus all your weekends. Perhaps that will even out your misguided perceptions about the time teachers have off. .

Add all the above to the fact that they have to put up with abuse, violence, threats and a general feeling of helplessness in many cases, wouldn't you go on strike, I would.

 

 

[postnote]

donna miller - 2011-06-30 8:21 AM

 

Tell that to my daughter.

 

Good pay.................. yes if you apply the rate to a 40 hr week, and disregard marking homework, planning lessons, after school activities etc at nights ( dont forget, no overtime on a salary)

Weekends off............only if you mean they don't go into the classroom.

School Holidays off............apart from running extra tuition, attending training courses.etc. etc. etc.

 

Many private and public sector workers enjoy 40+ days leave especially if they get bank holidays in addition to the minimum 28 days required by law. If you equate 40 days to weeks thats 8 working weeks a year plus all your weekends. Perhaps that will even out your misguided perceptions about the time teachers have off. .

Add all the above to the fact that they have to put up with abuse, violence, threats and a general feeling of helplessness in many cases, wouldn't you go on strike, I would.

 

 

Donna I agree with you..Who would want to be a teacher these days, what they earn and I don’t know the figure is well worth it and I know some will disagree.

Add to the fact teachers are open to daily doses of abuse, violence and threats, that seems to be condoned by their thuggish parents as a result of do gooders who are not in touch with reality changing our society..

 

For the worse I might add..

[josie gibblebucket]

donna miller - 2011-06-30 8:21 AM

 

antony1969 - 2011-06-30 6:58 AM

 

 

the minimum 28 days required by law.

 

 

 

I thought the law only required employers to give 20 days leave, and that if they wished, they could include the 8 bank hols within that 20 days. If its supposed to be 28, I've been robbed by several bosses then. :-(

[AliB]

josie gibblebucket - 2011-06-30 10:22 AM

 

donna miller - 2011-06-30 8:21 AM

 

antony1969 - 2011-06-30 6:58 AM

 

 

the minimum 28 days required by law.

 

 

 

I thought the law only required employers to give 20 days leave, and that if they wished, they could include the 8 bank hols within that 20 days. If its supposed to be 28, I've been robbed by several bosses then. :-(

 

It is 28 days including bank hols if you work 5 days a week. Note the term "work". That does not mean you attend 5 days a week!

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/Timeoffandholidays/DG_10029788

 

[donna miller]

Josie.

As stated above, you are entitled to a minimum 28 days paid annual leave, it is at the employers discretion as to whether bank holidays are included in this allowance or paid extra.

If you work part time, then the allowance is on a pro rata basis.

If your employers have not been allowing you this amount, I'm not sure what you can do legally, but check your contract of employment as many companies will say if holidays are not taken by the last day of their working year, you lose that entitlement.

[BGD]

donna miller - 2011-06-30 8:21 AM

 

antony1969 - 2011-06-30 6:58 AM

 

Teachers , Good pay , Weekends off , School holidays off , Sick pay , Time off for marking through the day and still a great pension deal . Must be truly awful ! . Am setting off for work myself in a minute and if there outside my local school waving there placards and wanting ya to honk ya horn in support then am going straight on pavement for em in me van . Watch this space .

 

Tell that to my daughter.

 

Good pay.................. yes if you apply the rate to a 40 hr week, and disregard marking homework, planning lessons, after school activities etc at nights ( dont forget, no overtime on a salary)

Weekends off............only if you mean they don't go into the classroom.

School Holidays off............apart from running extra tuition, attending training courses.etc. etc. etc.

 

Many private and public sector workers enjoy 40+ days leave especially if they get bank holidays in addition to the minimum 28 days required by law. If you equate 40 days to weeks thats 8 working weeks a year plus all your weekends. Perhaps that will even out your misguided perceptions about the time teachers have off. .

Add all the above to the fact that they have to put up with abuse, violence, threats and a general feeling of helplessness in many cases, wouldn't you go on strike, I would.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Donna - sorry, but I STRONGLY disagree.

 

 

Don't get me started on this - as well as my career in business, I used to live with a primary school teacher for many years, and I've also been a School Governor; I've seen what REALLY goes on.

 

Private sector.....20 days paid holiday minimum. NOT 28 days.

Most places give between 20 and 25, plus 8 bank holidays (or time off in lieu if required to work on a bank holiday)....how many bank holidays are teachers required to work?....oh yes, none. So let's say about 6 weeks total on average.

Teachers... in excess of 13 weeks paid holiday per year. College and University lecturers: in excess of 22 per year.

 

Private Sector working hours: of course they vary by industry and Company, but will often involve double day-shift (6 till 2 and 2 till 10) shiftwork or night shift working, weekends on rotations, and will be somewhere between 35 and forty hours basic per week. At any level above first line supervision, it would be MOST unusual for ANY additional payment for hours worked in excess of this, or for travel times to other sites, etc.

So annual basic required hours, about 1725 per year. Plus all the other hours involved, just like teachers, in planning, meetings, training etc outside of those basic hours.

Teachers: hours vary a little school by school, but let's say 9am to 3pm, with an hours lunch break, morning playtime, and in some Primary schools afternoon playtime as well. let's say 5 hours working attendance required per day, which equates to roughly 970 hours per year. Just a tad over HALF of the basic attendance hours required in the Private Sector.

 

Performance standards: private sector - perform or be sacked. You are only as safe as this months profits and return-on-capital targets, in a massively competitive commercial real world

Teachers: job for life. in the TEN years up to 2010, how many teachers, out of ALL of the teachers in England and Wales, were actually dismissed for poor performance? Seven. That's right, seven. It matters not one jot whether you are a good teacher or a bad teacher, or whether you used to be a good teacher but you are now a bloody awful teacher - ruining the prospects of yet another classroom full of

students every year - you keep your job.

The product that they are producing is, frankly, utter rubbish. Young people are emerging from at least 11 years "full time" education, that we taxpayers have paid teachers vast amounts in pay and benefits to deliver, and they aren't delivering. That "product" is increasingly unusable in the real world, unemployable, lacking in even the very basic skills of reading, writing, arithmetic.

If schools were businesses, most of them would go bust overnight - as no-one in the world of employment would want to buy their product if the had a choice.

 

Salaries: in the private sector there is NO right to a pay rise each year simply by virtue of have avoided being sacked over the past 12 months. You get one if you've deserved it, and if the Company can afford to give you one.

Teachers: most people outside the cushy world of education will not be aware that for at least the first 12 years of being a teacher (sometimes a little less if you start on above the basic scale point), a teacher gets TWO pay rises EVERY year. A general national pay rise, where all the "scale points" go up, at a rate well above inflation; and THEN an automatic personal uplift onto the next spine point up on the pay scale.

Thus rocket-fast pay increases from starting salary of approx £23,000 as a first year probationer to about £32,000 as a longer service (note, not better, but just longer service) main scale teacher. And remember, that is before ANY additional special responsibility payments, head of department payments, etc, which can add another £5,000 to £10,000 more - and these are BEFORE the massive London salaries allowances too.

£32k is the sort of money that a Middle Manager in the private sector would be paid. Maybe 20 or 30 staff; maybe personal budget responsibility for £10 million. But they have to attend for AT LEAST 1725 hours per year; an hourly rate of around £19.

A basic classroom teacher, who has managed to avoid being fired for 10 years is on the same money, PLUS a pension that is 5 times better, and only has to attend for at least 970 hours per year; an hourly basic pay rate of around £33. £33 quid per hours. Including all that time sitting in the staffroom drinking tea during morning and afternoon playtimes.

 

 

Pensions: the thing that teachers are whining on about at the moment.

Private sector: almost exclusively money-purchase defined-contribution schemes, or, where they are not available, totally funding your own pension pot yourself. Remember, that before you can make ANY provision out of your pay for any pension, you must first of all pay the PAYE tax, and Community Charge tax that goes to pay every penny of teachers salaries and sick pay and holiday pay, AND their gold-plated Final Salary pension schemes.

In the Private sector YOU take the investment risk as to whether your pension pot investment does well or badly, and thus gives you any sort of pension at AGE 65 or later. Highly unlikely to be able to afford an index linked pension.

Teachers: make a tiny (6% from memory) contribution to wards their Final salary pensions, with Private sector tax payers having had to earn the money to pay that to them in the first place; and THEN private sector tax payers having to pay, via taxes fort ALL the rest of the astronomical costs of the Teachers scheme, So that Teachers can retire at 60.On an index linked pension.

 

 

 

 

Teachers are not only vastly under-worked compared to ANY comparable profession anywhere in the private sector, they are massively overpaid and over-perked for what they do; and the quality, in terms of output, of what they do, is utterly unacceptable.

 

But the biggest tragedy, is that so many of them have never ever been out in the real world, have only remained within the closeted world that was school as a pupil, then university, then back into school as a teacher, that they actually, genuinely, think they are working as hard and productively as comparators in the Private Sector.

Honestly. They actually think they are working hard, and doing a good job.

They know no different. They think everyone gets such Gold plated pensions. That the money to pay and perk them grows on trees somewhere.

 

They genuinely have utterly no concept of how private sector companies and employees have to earn every penny of the wealth that can then be taken from them by force via taxes in order to pay every penny of every teachers pay and sick pay and pensions.

 

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but I think the entire education system is failing; it is unfit for purpose, and its costs - particularly pension costs is so massively expensive as to be completely unaffordable to the rest of us taxpayers, whilst it churns out utter rubbish year after year, but pays itself more and more and more.

 

 

 

[BGD]

Just to illustrate how jaw-droppingly expensive it actually is for private sector taxpayers to have to fund not only Teachers pay, but also their awesome pension benefits too:

 

 

 

From todays news....

 

Actuaries have worked out that to get themselves a comparable pension benefit to that of a just a mid-ranking teacher on £32k, a private sector employee on that same £32k per year would have to pay £500, EVERY MONTH, for EVERY YEAR of his entire working life into his pension pot. Not spend it on food; or his family; just straight into a pension pot.

A teacher? At 6% just contribution, they only put in £37per week.

 

 

 

In fact of course that private sector worker is doing the equivalent of that now - but the money is taken off him by force of law as tax, not to pay for his pension, but to pay for both the salary AND all the rest of the real costs of providing those guaranteed Gold-Plated final-salary-based pensions of those job-for-life, part-time hours, 13 weeks annual holiday, producing illiterate rubbish, teachers.

 

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Er, and your actual point, Bruce? :-D

[Randonneur]

Brian Kirby - 2011-06-30 3:07 PM

 

Er, and your actual point, Bruce? :-D

 

I think the headline speaks for itself.

 

Just been looking at Martin's old payslips and in 1988 he was paying 11.9% superannuation and left in 2000 with an annual pension of £10,000 plus his lump sum. So even back then the Police Officers were paying a higher percentage of pension deductions than most people.

[donna miller]

Sorry Bruce, I suggest you check your facts before barging in to a conversation and dismissing what I, and others say.

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/Timeoffandholidays/DG_10034642

 

 

And regardless of what you used to be, or what your partner once was, things are now different.

 

 

 

[postnote]

donna miller - 2011-06-30 2:51 PM

 

Sorry Bruce, I suggest you check your facts before barging in to a conversation and dismissing what I, and others say.

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/Timeoffandholidays/DG_10034642

 

 

And regardless of what you used to be, or what your partner once was, things are now different.

 

 

 

What about the poor unemployed that have to make do with unemployment benefits etc, where are their rights. Even they now have to wait until 66 to collect their pensions.

[BGD]

donna miller - 2011-06-30 2:51 PM

 

Sorry Bruce, I suggest you check your facts before barging in to a conversation and dismissing what I, and others say.

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/Timeoffandholidays/DG_10034642

 

 

And regardless of what you used to be, or what your partner once was, things are now different.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please look back at my post Donna - that reference backs up exactly what I said.

I said in my post that the minimum is 20 days plus the 8 bank holidays, (that's 28 days = 5.6 weeks, as per your reference) but a more reasonable average across the entire private sector is 6 weeks; as opposed to the more than 13 weeks paid holiday that teachers get.

 

 

 

Additionally, I did not dismiss what you said.

I said I strongly disagree with what you said, and then I gave a whole raft of considered reasons as to why I disagree.

 

 

Additionally, I did not "barge into a conversation". This is not some sort of private messaging system; it is an open thread in a public discussion forum.

People are free to enter, leave, or continue with this discussion entirely as they wish, subject only to the AUP of the host.

You put up a post expressing a point of view; indeed, disagreeing with an earlier poster. I responded to that post of yours with a different point of view. I'm struggling to see how your post was any less "barging into a conversation" than mine...........

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Suggestion: Rather than asserting that I am dismissing you simply because I disagree with what you wrote; would you like to now go through each of the points in my post one point at a time and explain your reasons for challenging the accuracy (or otherwise) of each of them?

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Randonneur - 2011-06-30 2:46 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2011-06-30 3:07 PM

 

Er, and your actual point, Bruce? :-D

 

I think the headline speaks for itself.

 

Just been looking at Martin's old payslips and in 1988 he was paying 11.9% superannuation and left in 2000 with an annual pension of £10,000 plus his lump sum. So even back then the Police Officers were paying a higher percentage of pension deductions than most people.

 

Yes, I understand that is true. However, they do, do they not, retire on average much earlier than most others (for perfectly good reasons), so need to accumulate their "pot" over a shorter time? Hence, the higher level of contributions?

[donna miller]

Keep your hair on Bruce, ok, maybe "barging in" was not the best choice of words, and I apologise if you took it the wrong way.

 

But, you DID state that the minimum was 20 days not 28, the law does not differentiate between normal and bank holiday entitlement, it is a minimum 28 days paid leave, period.

Nobody has a given right to be paid for a bank holiday, unless it forms part of your normal working pattern, and that is why most employers will state that your leave entitlement is 28 including bank holidays. You then added that typically the leave allowance was between 20-25 plus 8 bank holidays, and that simply isn't how things work. And in this case, as an employer, I know what I'm talking about.

 

Your other point was that you strongly disagreed with what I said concerning my daughter with regards to unpaid overtime, nights, holidays etc.etc. Now how would you know better than I do, when I talk about personal experience of the matter.

 

As for the rest, I'm not interested in how much of my tax money goes to public sector workers, just as much goes to Pakistan in foreign aid, whingeing isn't going to change it, they pay tax as well, so in that sense are no better off, do you honestly believe that our income tax would go down just because public sector spending was reduced.

And all this job for life, I don't know how long you've been out of the UK, but believe me, my daughter's job is no safer than mine, and I certainly am not a public sector worker.

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

As an aside :D...................I was following a thread a while back on another forum, and one of the posters put a link up to a teachers forum ;-).......................So I followed it :D.............If Francis thinks our spelling and grammar is crap, then he wants to have a look at a teachers forum(lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Made me feel sorry for to days kids if that lot was teaching them *-)...................

[BGD]

Actually Donna is right on one thing: things have indeed changed since I was a school Governor.

 

I took the trouble to have a read through the 2010/11 National Terms and Conditions document; and indeed things really have changed. They are now MUCH worse.

Pay rates have gone even further through the roof, yet the already laughably small number of working hours have dropped yet further.

 

From the current 2010/11 document (source: Govt Dept of Education):-

 

 

Basic pay scale from 1.9.10

1

£21,588

2

23,295

3

25,168

4

27,104

5

29,240

6

£31,552

 

 

Pay scale for post-threshold teachers from 1.9.10 ( ie, extra grade points above scale point 6)

U1

£34,181

U2

35,447

U3

£36,756

 

 

“Excellent teacher” pay

Minimum

£39,697

Maximum

£52,090

 

 

Additional Payments for teaching and learning responsibilities 2010/11 (eg for a curriculum area)

TLR 2 minimum

£2,535

TLR 2 maximum

£6,197

TLR 1 minimum

£7,323

TLR 1 maximum

£12,393

 

Additional Special needs payments for classroom teachers 2010/11 (if you have a special needs child in your class you get this extra allowance, even though there will be special helpers present in the class too)

Special needs 1

£2,001

Special needs 2

£3,954

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above rates include a 2.3% increase from 1.9.10.

Teachers also all got 2.3% rise 1.9.09, on top of a 2.45% increase on 1.9.08.

 

Thus they have enjoyed a 7,2% across the board rise in only 3 years, (during the worst recession in a generation, when hundreds of thousands of private sector workers have seen their pay drastically reduced, and hundreds of thousands more have lost their jobs altogether).

 

 

 

Now, to what they have to do to get these enormous salaries:

Teachers working hours were also further reduced from 1.9.10. : total days of required attendance drop from 195 to 194; and within that, the total days of actual teaching required drops from 190 to 189.

The total number of attendance hours dropped from 1.9.10, from 1265 to 1258.5 per year.

That is: 6.48 hours per day, or 32.4 hours per week.

Total annual attendance time: 38.8 weeks, each of 32.4 hours.

Total paid holiday: 13.2 weeks.

 

 

 

Please remember that ALL the above pay rates are JUST for ordinary classroom teachers.

Heads of Department, Deputy Heads and Heads are on other, even more ludicrous pay scales.

 

Remember also that most teachers get DOUBLE pay rises for each of at least the first 6 or 7 years of employment, simply so long as they aren't bad enough to actually get fired (which almost no teacher ever is), as they move up one notch on the pay scale each 1st September, as well as getting the national pay rise as applied to that new higher notch too.

 

All for working 6.48 hours a day, 38.8 weeks a year, and thus having the other 13.2 weeks of the years as fully paid holiday.

 

 

 

 

Plus a pension so good that to get a comparable one, a private sector worker would have to put over £500,000 into his pension pot......which of course he cannot do as most of his money is taken in taxes to pay for teachers (and other Public Sector employees) salaries and pensions.

 

 

 

 

And now they are striking because the country is going broke because of Public Sector costs; and they're actually gonna have to work until 65 rather than 60, and they're gonna have to put a little more into their pension contribution each month.

Poor lambs.

 

They never, ever, had it so good, whilst workforces in the private sector, that funds them, are being decimated.

 

 

 

[Randonneur]

Brian Kirby - 2011-06-30 5:56 PM

 

Randonneur - 2011-06-30 2:46 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2011-06-30 3:07 PM

 

Er, and your actual point, Bruce? :-D

 

I think the headline speaks for itself.

 

Just been looking at Martin's old payslips and in 1988 he was paying 11.9% superannuation and left in 2000 with an annual pension of £10,000 plus his lump sum. So even back then the Police Officers were paying a higher percentage of pension deductions than most people.

 

Yes, I understand that is true. However, they do, do they not, retire on average much earlier than most others (for perfectly good reasons), so need to accumulate their "pot" over a shorter time? Hence, the higher level of contributions?

 

Thats True Brian, they HAD to retire at 55, some fortunate ones were able to work in an admin job after, this could have happened to Martin but we decided that we would move to France and renovate a house, therefore giving him something to do in the next 10 years with a better quality of life because a lot of retired Police Officers don't have many years after 60 (if you understand my meaning), when the house is sold and we downsize we will benefit for all his hard work and sweat.

 

By the way, did you know that the Police Pensions do not have a Pensions Pot, the current Police Officers are in actual fact paying the pensions of retired Police Officers.

[BGD]

Randonneur - 2011-06-30 5:16 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2011-06-30 5:56 PM

 

Randonneur - 2011-06-30 2:46 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2011-06-30 3:07 PM

 

Er, and your actual point, Bruce? :-D

 

I think the headline speaks for itself.

 

Just been looking at Martin's old payslips and in 1988 he was paying 11.9% superannuation and left in 2000 with an annual pension of £10,000 plus his lump sum. So even back then the Police Officers were paying a higher percentage of pension deductions than most people.

 

Yes, I understand that is true. However, they do, do they not, retire on average much earlier than most others (for perfectly good reasons), so need to accumulate their "pot" over a shorter time? Hence, the higher level of contributions?

 

Thats True Brian, they HAD to retire at 55, some fortunate ones were able to work in an admin job after, this could have happened to Martin but we decided that we would move to France and renovate a house, therefore giving him something to do in the next 10 years with a better quality of life because a lot of retired Police Officers don't have many years after 60 (if you understand my meaning), when the house is sold and we downsize we will benefit for all his hard work and sweat.

 

By the way, did you know that the Police Pensions do not have a Pensions Pot, the current Police Officers are in actual fact paying the pensions of retired Police Officers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Re: your last paragraph....

 

Not so I'm afraid.

As with all other Public Sector unfunded (ie "no pot"), Final Salary pensions schemes, it is the PRIVATE SECTOR taxpayers who are funding the pensions of the retired employee.

 

 

Yes, current Police employees are making a tiny monthly contribution through their monthly "membership fee" which is buying them another month of pensionable service, but believe me, it is utterly TINY compared to the monthly cost of paying pensions to all the retired officers.

 

All the remainder... the other 95+% is paid out of taxation - that is, taxes levied on the wealth creating private sector companies and employees.

And remember, even the monthly contributions paid by serving Police officers came originally from taxes levied on the Private Sector too, and given to them as salary.

 

What they actually get for each month of contributions, is NOT a defined "pot" of pension money.

As with all "Gold Plated" Final Salary schemes (almost unheard of any long in the private sector, due to the MASSIVE cost of funding them, but VERY prevalent in the Public Sector, as it is not the Public Sector which has to fun them).

What they get fro each monthly fee is a defined amount of pensionable service, eg one twelfth of a year.

Each year of pensionable service will be worth "X" of final pensionable salary. Often it is one-sixtieth, but in schemes like the Police one, it is even more lucrative; perhaps one-fortieth or even one-thirtieth.

 

The taxpayer-cost of providing such a lucrative pension, index linked, and potentially payable for 30 or 40 or even more years (given their very very young retirement age) is utterly jaw-dropping.

 

 

 

 

 

[Big Momma]

BGD - 2011-06-30 1:08 PM

 

 

 

Don't get me started on this - as well as my career in business, I used to live with a primary school teacher for many years, and I've also been a School Governor; I've seen what REALLY goes on.

 

Teachers... in excess of 13 weeks paid holiday per year.

 

 

Teachers: hours vary a little school by school, but let's say 9am to 3pm, with an hours lunch break, morning playtime, and in some Primary schools afternoon playtime as well. let's say 5 hours working attendance required per day, which equates to roughly 970 hours per year. Just a tad over HALF of the basic attendance hours required in the Private Sector.

 

Teachers: job for life. in the TEN years up to 2010, how many teachers, out of ALL of the teachers in England and Wales, were actually dismissed for poor performance? Seven. That's right, seven. It matters not one jot whether you are a good teacher or a bad teacher, or whether you used to be a good teacher but you are now a bloody awful teacher - ruining the prospects of yet another classroom full of

students every year - you keep your job.

 

If schools were businesses, most of them would go bust overnight - as no-one in the world of employment would want to buy their product if the had a choice.

 

Teachers: most people outside the cushy world of education will not be aware that for at least the first 12 years of being a teacher (sometimes a little less if you start on above the basic scale point), a teacher gets TWO pay rises EVERY year. A general national pay rise, where all the "scale points" go up, at a rate well above inflation; and THEN an automatic personal uplift onto the next spine point up on the pay scale.

 

 

 

BGD, sorry mate, you may have lived with a 'Primary' school teacher so perhaps they did get 13 weeks off a year. I my OH is a teacher in a state school and she has to work over the school holidays just to keep up with the pace, planning lessons, marking school work, marking and grading exam course work, preparing and submiting sample submissions for OFSTED inspections, attending several evening Parent/Teacher meetings for each 'student year' etc. etc.

 

You paint a very biased picture to get your propoganda message over, but you are ill informed or perhaps that is what you want to believe to give your bias some credence.

 

School hours 9am-3pm and 1 hours lunch ! You really are mis-informed, try 7am until 6pm, that is actually in school, preparing classrooms, labs, auditing stock (schools handle dangerous chemichals which are accountable), doing supervision of school premises during breaks, lunches and to check all pupils have left premises at end of school day. Then coming home, eating tea and then getting stuck in to marking homework, setting homework, planning lessons. primary school teachers may look after one set of kids, state schol teachers age groups of 11-16years are responsible for the full age range and involve several classes a day, all of which have homework to be set and then marked. Oh yes and don't forget detention duties (after school) and after school activities (lawful requirement to supervise).

 

Job for life (I am almost rolling around my lounge floor in laughter), so far 3 staff in 6 months have been sacked at my OH's school because they were underperforming. Others have been made redundant, not because they are underperforming but because the Government have reduced the budget for the school, so staff go but the size of the classrooms increase.

 

The Government have started these Acadamies and state that they will be better. Did you know that they have given these Acadamies an increased budget to ensure that they have the resources to succeed. had they given the same budget to the local Councils to give to the schols then they would have been able to achieve the resources and succeed, it is utter propoganda about failing schools, the Government have made them fail by cutting resources, interfering with curriculums and then when they get it wrong they blame the schools.

 

Teachers do not get automatic performance related pay rises each year as you suggest. If you do not perform you do not get the spinal pay rise. Of course teachers have in the past got annual cost of living pay rises and that is the only statement you have made that I will not contest.

 

I suspect that your experience of living with a Primary School teacher is completely different to teachers who work with the higher age groups so your comparisons were neither fair and wildly inaccurate.

 

I am not arguing the case about reducing costs or the rights and wrongs of strike action, but your tainted and ill informed picture of the supposed 'cushy' life of teachers is so outrageous it needs correcting.

 

School Report for BGD - Unfortunately BGD distorts facts and could do much better *-)

[BGD]

I'm afraid I stand by every word I wrote Eric.

 

All elements of their pay and conditions of service are exactly as I detailed above. You might not believe them - I'm sure most people outside of teaching wouldn't - but there they are.

That's what they get paid for their, essentially compared to most private sector jobs, part time work.

 

 

In ANY professional job, the employee does more than their "basic" hours from time to time.

 

With regard to hours; my point remains that the contracted basic hours of a teacher (and their is NO distinction between Primary and Secondary, ALL enjoy the same low basic hours), are MILES lower than for comparators elsewhere.

In which other "professional" jobs are the basic hours 32.4 hours per week, with 13.2 weeks of paid annual holiday?

A teacher may volunteer to do some extra hours, but they are NOT contractually obliged to do so at all....thus their awesome pay levels are for the basic hours as I quoted earlier.

 

 

With regard to progression up the basic pay spine (as far as scale-point 6, the top of the main scale); you are incorrect.

A teacher moves one grade up the pay spine for each year of completed service, measured at 1st September annually, REGARDLESS of performance, amount of sick time off, or any other mitigating factor.

They could indeed by suspended for gross misconduct allegations, yet they would still receive the 1st September spine-point upgrade as of right; as under the national collective agreement it is driven by length of service alone.

 

 

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Slight OT diversion, so apologies. Evan Davis had a programme this last Monday, called Made in Britain. It is part of a series, and what I am about to say may be overtaken as the series unfolds.

 

Nevertheless, the central thesis was that the way we really earn our national income is through smart innovation, design, and marketing. The manufacturing bit, he professed, is best carried out elsewhere, because it is a comparatively high cost venture with comparatively low returns. So, ignoring the echo of Thatcher, what we need are more and more bright, intellectually sharp, energetic, inventive people. The instances of success on these lines that he cited, were all dependant on the recruitment of the best and brightest, from wherever around the world they originated. So education, then? Teachers, college and university lecturers and the like? Necessary for national success?

 

But then, what was missing, it seemed, was any vision for the less bright, the less intellectually sharp, the less energetic, and the less inventive. That seems to me a major flaw in his thesis. Populations, by and large, have similar ability ranges whatever the country. So, on this model, our advantage can only be gained by maximising the skills of our own population, and grafting onto this the brightest and best of those from other populations, to give the UK a higher than average quotient of folk in the genius class. Presumably, while we concentrate on that strategy, no-one else will have the same idea? However, even within this enhanced ability spread, those who can contribute to this "high tech" economic model would seem to be a relatively small group. So, what of the rest of us? If we are not to make things, what are we to do? If all the productive work is to go to others, how shall we contribute to our own economy? It just struck me that the majority of the population had been airbrushed out of an economic role. Nevertheless, they exist, and unless euthanasia based on IQ is to be introduced, will need educating, housing, feeding, medical services, presumably some kind of employment, and sufficient income in later years, to prevent them embarrassing the fortunate few by dying within their view. Ah yes: pensions!

 

So, we need teachers, very clever teachers, who are going to teach the brightest and the best, but also the rest of us, and those teachers will need, apart from a sense of vocation, adequate incentive to enter teaching. That suggests to me that they will need to be sufficient in number, and adequate in ability, to do what is required. Leave aside all the points about the astronomic cost of our present practitioners, who may or may not be up to scratch, we want better. Judging from class sizes, I think we may also want more, but for some reason, we seem to imagine we can get better and more at lower cost than at present.

 

If we knock back their salaries, teaching, overall, will presumably become a less attractive career, and the quality, and quantity, of the intake, will suffer. In small ways, this has been happening for years, as we have sought to improve the level of education across the board. Instead of education being for the privileged few, based first on wealth, later on the 11+, it is now offered to all (more or less! :-)), without fear or favour. The result was rising cost, which has been trimmed back over years by reducing pay levels, so causing periodic panics over recruitment, in turn partly ameliorated by recruiting from overseas, and partly by offering other benefits in the form of job security and pension rights.

 

This is part of our national conceit. We aspire to walk among giants, but have to wear platform soled shoes to gain the necessary stature. Now, it seems we must pay for the shoes, and various bits of our society are having to confront who should bear the greatest proportion of the cost. Enhanced student fees etc. Like most mortals (and the Greeks), we all want someone else to pay for our party. Yet, we all want the benefits of economic success. We want the higher standards of living, the improved access to education, the better pensions, but not the bill.

 

Can't be done, can it? One way or another, education has to be paid for. If we want top teachers, they won't be cheap. Should we then sell off all the schools to private operators? Would that improve standards across the board, or be any cheaper, than the state achieves? How then would the low paid, whose children cannot be guaranteed to be thick because their parents are poor, afford to educate those children? Is that not what gave rise to the 1944 Education Act and all that followed. Do we really need to climb back into that midden just to see the consequences? And, whether or not the teachers are state paid, most of us would end up paying their salaries, at the very least, when we have children. Further, those teachers, private or state paid (I gather even a few from Eton joined today's strikes :-)), will want, and need pensions. Presumably, they will want good pensions. Whoever actually funds those pensions, they too will cost parents, taxpayers, call them what you will, rather a lot of money, either through salaries enhanced to cover the cost of contributions, or by other means. If that is not done, expect a chronic shortage of teachers overall in a few years time, and an acute shortage of top teachers. They, just like all other intelligent beings, will measure the rewards on offer against those elsewhere, and vote accordingly. Bye, bye, top league UK!

 

So, if quality teaching is essential to our future wealth, and is a costly service, and if any teacher, from whatever sphere, will expect a good pension at the end of his working life, why all the hype about whether they are state paid, or privately paid? This seems to me the most enormous red herring, unless someone can demonstrate how the actual costs can be reduced, or the actual quality raised, by whichever option is adopted. In his comparisons, Bruce seems to be likening teachers to shop floor workers, perhaps forgetting that those whose career paths lead them to the shop floor, may not have the capability to teach the languages - including English, sciences, economics, mathematics, that will ultimately be required if our design engineers, technicians, and research scientists are to provide the kind of economy we seem to dream is our birthright.

 

Is the status quo perfect? Of course it is not: it is flawed in many ways, and it seems frequently not to deliver value for money. I just think that before we set about upending the apple cart we should remember that what we have at present is the result of years of political tinkering, too often for dogmatic reasons, too infrequently based on research and observable results, and that the present upheaval is yet again being caused by that same group of opinionated, closed minded, dogmatic, impatient-with-facts, people, who have got us where we now are. However much money this may actually save (jury out!) in the medium term, I strongly suspect it will turn into the most monumental own goal in history (or at least since we invaded Iraq)!

[Big Momma]

Bruce, certainly glad that you did not take the opportunity to turn this into a mud slinging match. I like most of your posts and although I do not always agree with everything you say or your points of view, they are 'generally' well balanced. However, on this occasion I do have to disagree with you.

 

Dependent on your role within the school this does have an impact on your hours, yes there is a minimum basic working hours that the teachers get paid for, however, their is also something called 'Directed Time', this is time which is 'obligatory' not discretionary. The additional hours, staying on to manage 'detention' or 'exclusion' classes is not voluntary, it is directed. The time spent after school on Parents/Teachers evenings is not voluntary, it is directed time, the time spent on evenings or at weekends on 'after school activities' is not voluntary it is directed time.

 

Like Private Sector business, Schools do have to acheive targets and results, these are set by the Government. Impact on a business if it fails to acheive targets/results, loss of business and loss of money /profit. Impact on school if it does not acheive targets/results, public naming and shaming in media, parnts will not send children to that school, funds are provided by numbers of kids bums on seats, less children less funds.

 

What person in the private sector goes to work to do a specific role and is subject to physical and verbal abuse by someone in that environment, very few, teachers these days encounter it on a daily basis, often on multiple occasions in that school day. How many private sector workers will have their cars/homes vandalised or be subject to harrasment by people who they work with, very few, teachers are increasingly having to live further out from the school catchment areas because of vilolence, harassment from pupils and/or parents of those pupils. How many private sector workers go to work and end up having to feed other' peoples children because they have arrived having had nothing to eat for breakfast and no lunch or money to buy lunch. Teachers are now not just teachers they are having to be social and welfare councillors as well, this is not in their terms and conditions and they do not get paid for it.

 

My OH did go in to work today because her Union did not ballot for strike action. To have not turned up would have been in contravention of her T&C's. She went in and with no children present was actually able to catch up with other work. She came home at 6.15pm and is now out at an after school event, not voluntarily, but directed time.

 

Don't just compare wages, compare work environments and what has to be done well above and beyond the contracted hours or T&C's.

 

I can tell you stories (well actually I can't because it would be breaking confidences) about parents who leave their 12-14 years olds alone at night to look after younger siblings whilst they go out on the P**S, because of hangovers they keep the kids off school to look after the youngsters whilst they sleep it off. Don't hear them moaning then about the kids missing school for a day. What about the kids that get taken out of school for lots of days so that they can go on holidays with their parents, don't hear them moaning then about the kids missing school for a day or more do you.

 

I think that this is one subject when we will have to agree to disagree ;-)

[postnote]

What's Brian doing dropping into the Chatterbox forums. Thought he was the sensible one? :D