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

Old_Slaphead

Pennywise wrote: »

The average bog standard accountant will be far better working in the public sector than the private sector - only the real high flyers get to the top - many (most) will languish in small firms, probably not even earning enough to pay higher rate tax, with nothing more than a £50 xmas bonus to look forward to, certainly no other "perks" as such that you seem to think everyone gets in the private sector.

I can confirm that - being a bog-standard (qualified) accountant working for SMEs and having better remunerated friends working in the public sector. Most days I get recruitment agencies pestering me trying to place decent qualified accountants at under £30k (no pensions either !!)

marklv

Really2 wrote: »

Hello planet earth calling. How are pay rises (all be it below inflation) = brutal.

Many in the private sector have seen no increase for years?
I am sure they would love to have a brutal 1% pay rise forced on them.

Since when did it become right for above inflation pay rises to be expected every year no matter the cost?

In a number countries pay rises are linked to inflation by law.

marklv

abaxas wrote: »

Just a quick example for how the public sector has changed....

My juniur school had 13 members of staff including cleaners, dinner ladies etc in 1980.

Mate's son goes to the same school which has 32 now. Well 32 on the welcome board in reception, who knows who else..

!!!!!! are the others doing?

Well, more pupils need more staff - obvious to all except you, it seems!

marklv

Really2 wrote: »

My wife has moved up in the public sector.
Teachers can move up (up to over £100K)

So I fail to see how you do not believe there is career growth potential in the public sector?

Heateachers can move to £100k+. I have already stated that I believe these senior salaries should be frozen or cut; it's the middling and low salaries that I believe should not be.

marklv

Pete111 wrote: »

I think there is opportunity for significant advancement in the public sector - albeit more limited in scope than in the private sector.

I suspect however that large swathes of those within the public sector do not necessarily show the aptitude, desire to grow their skills or career 'drive' to take such opportunities.

Having worked in HR within a quango that was roughly 50/50 in terms of employees backgrounds (public/private) I saw an awful lot of ex public sector folk simply happy to sit in the same job and do the 9-5 (and not a second more...) and a lot of people with private sector backgrounds moving up the ladder ahead of them by going the extra mile.

Just an observation - I think it was a mindset thing mostly.

Yes, but that's because different people are atracted by different things. People who enter the public sector don't tend to look for 12 hour days and big money, they look for security, stability, good pensions, steady pay rises, flexible working and work life balance. Each to his own.

Generali

marklv wrote: »

In a number countries pay rises are linked to inflation by law.

Which ones please?

Davesnave

abaxas wrote: »

Just a quick example for how the public sector has changed....

My juniur school had 13 members of staff including cleaners, dinner ladies etc in 1980.

Mate's son goes to the same school which has 32 now. Well 32 on the welcome board in reception, who knows who else..

!!!!!! are the others doing?

The school's intake may have grown, but a good numberof those extra people will also be support staff, placed in the school to meet special educational needs, many of which were neglected in 1980. A good proportion of them will be part-time too.

Also, in 1980, those with moderate/severe special needs were educated separately in special schools, many of which have since closed as a result of a policy of integration.

I am not saying whether this policy has been good or bad, simply that staff have moved from those schools into mainstream.

carolt

Prudent wrote: »

I am a teacher and would be extremely uncomfortable about striking for a rise in the current climate. I think the government could easily avert this strike by tackling our biggest issue which is workload. Teachers do more unpaid overtime than any other sector of the workforce according to a recent survey. My wage isn't an issue to me - its perfectly adequate to live on. My work/life balance is a big issue. The saddest thing is that much of the workload is paperwork for the sake of paperwork. I would much rather have time to prepare quality lessons for the children.

Wish I could thank this several times over.

I think the real issue they're striking about is about workload, not about pay.

The amount of utterless pointless paperwork that is required is by teachers these days is the problem - needing to leave a paper trail in triplicate to prove kids are learning the correct things inevitably means less time to actually devote to teaching those kids and planning the actual lessons; even teachers need to sleep occasionally.

Really2

carolt wrote: »

I think the real issue they're striking about is about workload, not about pay.

There are 2 separate strike threats 1 is as per the thread.
To strike to any cuts (real term), job losses or changes are made to pensions in support of the public sector.
The 2nd is for a 35 Hour week.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/apr/04/nut-conference-35-hour-week

Kohoutek

marklv wrote: »

People who enter the public sector don't tend to look for 12 hour days and big money, they look for security, stability, good pensions, steady pay rises, flexible working and work life balance. Each to his own.

I agree with 'each to their own'. But why do you expect other people to pay for this?

Why should people who are having their pay cut or frozen in the private sector pay for the public sector's desire for steady pay rises and flexible working?

Can't you see that people like you and your silk tie union leaders come across as very greedy and grasping in an economic time like this?