Crunch time for council workers’ golden pensions

carolt

Ok, then, let's compare you and me. I have a 2:1 from Oxford. I could easily have walked into a job as an accountant or lawyer, but chose not to, because I did work experience, but found it too money-obsessed, and, ultimately, pointless. I wanted to go home at the end of the day feeling I'd made some people's lives a bit better, not just moved some figures on a sheet around and got a big fat salary cheque for it.

According to your assumptions, I should be paid more, because I'm a stronger candidate. But I'm not - teachers are paid less.

Fact.

Fail to see how you can argue higher salary = better candidate.

The private sector pays better for equivalent work and people. I don't mind that; I made my choice, and, unlike donald trump, I'm happy with it.

But don't try to pretend that private sector types are (a) paid more because they're intrinsically 'better', or, (b) illogically, that at the same time, the poor private sector workers are all paid less, as donaldtrump claims.

SuzieSue

carolt wrote: »

22K! That's barely a starting salary! See my figures above. If solicitors are earning 60K plus after just 2 years in the job, then what the average salary is I wouldn't like to say.

That's less than the national average, which includes unskilled, part-time, manual etc.

Graduate jobs pay far more.

Are you sure you're an accountant?

By average graduate salary, I meant their starting salary.

carolt

Ah, right.

Actually, the figures I quoted are not my own invention - please refer to the link if you won't believe me.

I think you're getting confused by the definition of 'newly qualified' re solicitors; that means a solicitor who has done a 1 year post-grad Law course, followed by 2 years of articles (paid training). The 60K figure referred to the salary paid on qualification, ie after 1 year of training and 2 years of work = equivalent to a teacher with 2 years of work under his/her belt, not a lawyer on day 1 of their job. That figure (ie what would be called a starting salary in most professions) was 33K.

However, either figure is 50-100% more than a teacher would earn at the same point in their career.

SuzieSue

carolt wrote: »

Ok, then, let's compare you and me. I have a 2:1 from Oxford. I could easily have walked into a job as an accountant or lawyer, but chose not to, because I did work experience, but found it too money-obsessed, and, ultimately, pointless. I wanted to go home at the end of the day feeling I'd made some people's lives a bit better, not just moved some figures on a sheet around and got a big fat salary cheque for it.

According to your assumptions, I should be paid more, because I'm a stronger candidate. But I'm not - teachers are paid less.

Fact.

Fail to see how you can argue higher salary = better candidate.

Yes, a 2:1 from Oxford is significantly better than my degree and so you should be paid more. However I have not argued that higher salary = better candidate. The lawyers firms offering £64k are only doing so because they have to to attact the best candidates, not because they want to. It is all about supply and demand. Just because you are better than these lawyers, doesn't mean that you can have their salary if your employer doesn't need to offer it to attact the people they need.

SuzieSue

carolt wrote: »

Ah, right.

Actually, the figures I quoted are not my own invention - please refer to the link if you won't believe me.

I think you're getting confused by the definition of 'newly qualified' re solicitors; that means a solicitor who has done a 1 year post-grad Law course, followed by 2 years of articles (paid training). The 60K figure referred to the salary paid on qualification, ie after 1 year of training and 2 years of work = equivalent to a teacher with 2 years of work under his/her belt, not a lawyer on day 1 of their job. That figure (ie what would be called a starting salary in most professions) was 33K.

However, either figure is 50-100% more than a teacher would earn at the same point in their career.

Thanks for the clarification. I remember watching a programme on BBC2 last year which showed how competitive it was to become an articled clerk, and I think this year it is almost impossible.

carolt

SuzieSue wrote: »

Yes, a 2:1 from Oxford is significantly better than my degree and so you should be paid more. However I have not argued that higher salary = better candidate. The lawyers firms offering £64k are only doing so because they have to to attact the best candidates, not because they want to. It is all about supply and demand. Just because you are better than these lawyers, doesn't mean that you can have their salary if your employer doesn't need to offer it to attact the people they need.

Oh bless, I'm not arguing I'm a stronger candidate at all, I'm just trying to point out the illogic in your position.

I don't think high salaries attract the best; they just attrat those motivated primarily by money - hence the banking debacle.

I'm sure you're excellent at your job, and don't believe worth can be measured at all - certainly not by degree class or salary!

What rewards me for my job as a teacher is the opportunity to laugh, be creative, communicate with people etc etc - all things unquantifiable. I'm happy to take the pay off of a lower salary. Not that I wouldn't like a higher one. I just get peeved when people suggest it should be lower still!

dalkey1

I agree that their is disparity with the public view of real jobs and non jobs in the public sector and that has to be addressed. We need teachers, nurses, doctors etc but not "lets work out the parking zone" type. Also, as we are in 2009, self same teachers (and kid's) should jump forward and join the non agrarian society we now live in and get reg holidays, not extended for cropping. This applies to my friend who works in the house of lords and gets a ridiculous number of "holidays"

carolt

SuzieSue wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification. I remember watching a programme on BBC2 last year which showed how competitive it was to become an articled clerk, and I think this year it is almost impossible.

True - but then you try getting a place on a teaching course this year, either.

That's the recession for you, I'm afraid.

carolt

I'm sure there are bad teachers out there.

Plenty of bad bankers too. Which lot are better paid?

Which lot required more money from the taxpayer?

savemoney

Too late for my council

http://www.scarborougheveningnews.co.uk/news/Councils39-pensions-shock-for-tax.5592863.jp

COUNCIL tax payers are facing a massive bill to fund Scarborough Council's pension scheme which is more than £60 million in the red.