We are all in this together, well not if you are in a union.

Kohoutek

marklv wrote: »

Not true, because many companies do offer bonuses of up to 15% per annum - John Lewis regularly does and so do many other large employers.

Red Herring. John Lewis isn't a private company, it's a partnership like a law firm where all the partners share in the profits. The vast majority of private sector workers work in small businesses, which very rarely/never give out bonuses. Even for those who work in 'big business', like Tesco, the shareholders, the directors and the management come first, meaning the average worker does not get a bonus. The people in big business you are thinking of that regularly earn a bonuses are a very tiny amount of the private sector workforce.

Don't you know that some parts of the public sector gives bonuses?

A council electrician has earned pay and bonuses of £124,000 in a year....Details of the electrician’s pay emerged in documents released by the UK’s biggest council, which show that 58 other workers, including binmen, gardeners and gravediggers, were paid bonuses of up to £20,000 each.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6982335.ece

Wealthy quango bosses are openly snubbing the Scottish Government by refusing to pay back their taxpayer-funded bonuses....these include former Scottish Enterprise chief executive Jack Perry, who is not waiving the £18,764 bonus he received last year. Richard Ackroyd, the £373,000-a-year Scottish Water boss, is declining to hand over a £101,000 top-up he received in 2009.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/revealed-the-public-sector-bosses-keeping-their-bonuses-1.1000945

marklv wrote: »

If you compare job for job the private sector offers considerably more money..

Really? I don't think these examples reflect that. They seem to pay the same as the equivalent in the private sector.

Marketing officer....£36,000 – £42,900

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/981828/marketing-officer/

Human Resources Manager...£40,506 - £43,152

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/981542/human-resources-manager/

MrsE_2

marklv wrote: »

And who are you to say this? If you are on £100k a year then a pay freeze or even cut has minimal impact, but for, say, an administrator on £17k a year then it most certainly does have an impact. I would support pay freezes (or even cuts) only for the most well paid employees in the public sector, e.g. judges, headteachers or senior doctors, and all the various senior managers/directors.

I am a very junior manager, a drop in the ocean.
But there is no more money, there is less.
If people insist on pay increases the only way to afford it will be job losses.

TDS_2

marklv wrote: »

It depends on where the job losses are. I would not strike if some useless quangos were abolished, no.

So as long as you're untouched it's 'okay' by you. Sums up your entire argument, really.

I still don't quite understand why you think it's ok that private sector workers are having their pay frozen - i.e. 0% increase, or a 'cut' in your eyes - and yet public sector workers are entitled to a RPI increase.

Of course you're entitled to stike, but I can't see a great deal of sympathy from the private sector. The private sector already feels it gets a raw deal over public sector pensions, and I fear a strike would cement that attitude. Still, time will tell...

simongregson

A few facts, although I'm sure in some people's eyes they are irrelevant

Teachers earn between (approx) £20000 and £35000. Higher paid teachers have passed quite a rigorous performance management process. Bear in mind that all of them have degrees and a 1 year post graduate qualification, or equivalent.

There are several teaching unions, the NUT being the most militant. They are pretty much always threatening to go on strike.

Apart from the NUT, all the other teaching unions are part of the government's social partnership. This means they negotiate constructively with the government, one example being the compromise in cover assistants being able to take classes when the teacher is absent, this vastly reduces costs and means that teachers no longer cover for absent colleagues for short term illnesses.

Most school pay is determined by the independent school teachers pay review body. They are currently in the middle of a 3 year pay agreement, with increases of around 2.3% per year. This was set when inflation was around 5% so for the first year of the deal was equivalent to a 2.7% pay cut in real terms.

Most academy schools pay more, rather than less, than the national teacher pay scale, otherwise they would end up with the worst staff!

Labour's increases in school funding have led to huge improvements in schools during the time I have been teaching. Anyone who has been in the profession or experienced schools before can see this. At the same time accountability and professional workload have also increased. This video talks a little about it. The NASUWT is not affiliated to the labour party.

http://www.nasuwt.org.uk/InformationandAdvice/Professionalissues/VoteforEducation/index.htm

There will undoubtedly be some scaling back under the next government. However, doing this sensibly would seem to me to involve

1. Continue the social partnership model, there have been no national strikes by the unions involved with this since it started, even though it does not all go the union's way
2. Complete the current 3 year pay deal, which as 1 year left to run, then renegotiate in the light of public sector pay policy after the deal has ended, from Sep 2011. Avoid a needless battle about something already agreed.
3. Cut back on admin staff based at the local authority level. They are paid far more than teachers, and are often as much use as a chocolate teapot.
4. Stop spending money on school self publicity, however subtle, and instead spend it on the education of the children in the school.

I really don't want to get into an argument with some of the more vehemently left or right wing posters on this thread, but sometimes a few facts help sensible debate!

nearlynew

simongregson wrote: »

A few facts..............,

Labour's increases in school funding have led to huge improvements in schools during the time I have been teaching. Anyone who has been in the profession or experienced schools before can see this..............

I really don't want to get into an argument with some of the more vehemently left or right wing posters on this thread, but sometimes a few facts help sensible debate!

You're right - some facts, rather than opinions, would be nice.

simongregson

nearlynew wrote: »

You're right - some facts, rather than opinions, would be nice.

I challenge you to find a teacher or anyone else with direct day-to-day experience of schools who doesn't agree with what I said!

kabayiri

I can't quite work out why marklv seems so bitter and angry about things.

Some people I work with had news of a 10% pay cut this week - private sector of course. They'd have far more right to be bitter and angry, but they understand the company needs to survive.

Mark doesn't understand how cushty his situation is.

marklv

Kohoutek wrote: »

Red Herring. John Lewis isn't a private company, it's a partnership like a law firm where all the partners share in the profits. The vast majority of private sector workers work in small businesses, which very rarely/never give out bonuses. Even for those who work in 'big business', like Tesco, the shareholders, the directors and the management come first, meaning the average worker does not get a bonus. The people in big business you are thinking of that regularly earn a bonuses are a very tiny amount of the private sector workforce.

Don't you know that some parts of the public sector gives bonuses?

John Lewis might be a partnership but it's still a private sector concern, besides it's not JL alone that pays out bonuses, as you well know. Yes, some bodies in the public sector give bonuses to high performers, but these are the exception rather than the rule, and are only normally given to those who have hit the ceiling of their grade payband.

marklv

TDS wrote: »

So as long as you're untouched it's 'okay' by you. Sums up your entire argument, really.

I still don't quite understand why you think it's ok that private sector workers are having their pay frozen - i.e. 0% increase, or a 'cut' in your eyes - and yet public sector workers are entitled to a RPI increase.

Of course you're entitled to stike, but I can't see a great deal of sympathy from the private sector. The private sector already feels it gets a raw deal over public sector pensions, and I fear a strike would cement that attitude. Still, time will tell...

I never said it was OK for private sector workers to have their pay frozen - I really wish nobody's pay was frozen, of course. But the public sector operates differently and the reasons for company pay freezes/cuts don't apply here. There are no shareholders for the NHS, the Police or the Civil Service - these are not profit making businesses that have to make money for shareholding organisations. Why do you think that hurting public sector workers is going to do any good, other than make you feel better? If you are so jealous of public sector workers then by all means apply for employment in this area - you'll soon find that it's not all wine and roses.

Kohoutek

marklv wrote: »

John Lewis might be a partnership but it's still a private sector concern, besides it's not JL alone that pays out bonuses, as you well know.

I know, but you were trying to suggest John Lewis' bonuses are an illustrative example or typical experience for ordinary workers in the retail sector and the reality is the opposite - they are an anomaly.

The reason John Lewis pays bonuses is that it is not a company - all the employees of the firm are the owners and therefore share the profits. The overwhelming majority of private sectors employees work for companies - where the profits of the businesses are distributed to the owners/shareholders and the management (in the case of a small business, often the same person), not the workers.

marklv wrote: »

Yes, some bodies in the public sector give bonuses to high performers, but these are the exception rather than the rule, and are only normally given to those who have hit the ceiling of their grade payband.

Bonuses is the private sector are the exception rather than rule too, in fact for the vast majority they are an impossibility. Are you continuing your delusional belief that bonuses are normal amongst ordinary private sector workers?