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

marklv

PrivatisetheNHSnow wrote: »

the public sector doesn't pay tax. therefore they shouldn't ask for pay rises.

debate over.

People who work in the public sector do pay taxes, you idiot.

Really2

misskool wrote: »

Of course you can't always filter out the bad ones, happens in every industry. Do you think you could get better teachers if you paid them what premier league footballers were paid? (just as hypothetical question of course).

I totally get what you're saying, just that I don't understand why some professions that are more 'worthy' aren't due more recognition

I agree they are undervalued but that is more to do with who they deal with (Come on we were all children and I bet we all gave 1 teacher at least a hard time)
Unlike other jobs they do not get the slap on the back "good job" off the kids (well until the kids are adults and see them one day) until the exam results come out.
So some of it, like some private sector jobs have to be self rewarding and self motivating.
But yes I really respect the jobs teachers do, but not some of the reasons of why they may strike.

On the premier league football bit I would say it makes no difference infact perhaps the opposite.
We now have less UK players in our league than 10, 20, 30 years ago even though the money is madness.
So even if you increase the wages it does not mean the ones we have will be better.
Also people pick teaching as a job for many footballers it is a chance out, 99%+ of people who go to get a trail never end up with a contract never mind a mega £££ one.
I presume if teaching was the same it would not be as inviting if there was a 99% chance at the end there was no Job for you .:)

chewmylegoff

marklv wrote: »

People who work in the public sector do pay taxes, you idiot.

but since their salary is funded from tax revenue in the first place, any taxes either direct or indirect paid are simply recycling the original tax revenue. no new money is raised therefore you don't really pay taxes.

basically you just see some meaningless maths on your payslip. the cost to the public purse of employing you is your net salary, not your gross salary.

if it would make you happier public sector salaries could be increased by 10% rather than 1%, funded entirely by a special 9% tax paid only by public sector employees. you could tell people you were "doing your bit".

marklv

Kohoutek wrote: »

If you're asking for pay rises of any kind when the government is running a £167 billion deficit, then the money has to come from somewhere, and that's usually through higher taxes, which puts bigger burdens on many people who have had their pay frozen or cut.

Hard cheese. You're saying that everyone in the private sector has had pay cuts or freezes, which is very far from the truth. Some have, but most haven't, and many of those who have had cuts were probably earning too much to start with. Besides which, if you're not happy in your job, go elsewhere.

misskool

The_White_Horse wrote: »

every teacher knows the pay scale when they sign up for teaching. if they think it is too low for them, why do they do it? why don't the maths teachers become chartered accountants??? because they can't.

they get paid what they are worth. that is the long and short of it. they are in a job where they are virtually unsackable (unless they make an anti-pc remark) and have a brilliant pension and massive holidays.

If teachers hate the pay - they shouldn't become teachers. you'd think a teacher would have the brains to work that out - actually, under new labour and don't think teachers have brains anymore - but pay them more, and magically, they will become better teachers. amazing that.

but if you want the chartered accountants to think about becoming teachers you have to have the salary there to tempt them.

you only get the barrel scraping because you pay barrel scrapings.

I would much rather have someone who could be a chartered accountant choosing to become a teacher because the pay was the same rather than a teacher who only did it because it was the best paid job for their academic ability.

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

....
Also people pick teaching as a job for many footballers it is a chance out 99%+ of people who go to get a trail never end up with a contract never mind a mega £££ one.
I presume if teaching was the same it would not be as inviting if there was a 99% chance at the end there was no Job for you .:)

or the job picks them.....in some sad cases the saying ''if you can't do, teach'' is apt. Thank fully this is very far from universal!

misskool

marklv wrote: »

Hard cheese. You're saying that everyone in the private sector has had pay cuts or freezes, which is very far from the truth. Some have, but most haven't, and many of those who have had cuts were probably earning too much to start with. Besides which, if you're not happy in your job, go elsewhere.

So why can't we say the same for the public sector? If you're about to get a pay cut and you're not happy with your job, go elsewhere?

Why the double standards?

lostinrates

misskool wrote: »

but if you want the chartered accountants to think about becoming teachers you have to have the salary there to tempt them.

you only get the barrel scraping because you pay barrel scrapings.

I would much rather have someone who could be a chartered accountant choosing to become a teacher because the pay was the same rather than a teacher who only did it because it was the best paid job for their academic ability.

Not necessarily salary: work life balance too. Conversely, if you want someone with the choice of those to jobs to work many hours lat into the night, barely see their children etc you need to pay THEM a a salary commensurate with that!

marklv

chewmylegoff wrote: »

the compensation package for public sector jobs should be set at market rate for the particular role, so that a competent employee can be attracted.

Compensation packages in the public sector are already set at minimum market rates - and should stay at these rates. I've been saying this all along. That doesn't mean cutting pay just because the private sector is doing so in some - only some areas of industry, many of which have no direct public sector equivalent.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

assuming your theory that public sector workers want job security, regular payrises, better pension, shorter hours it would not be appropriate to peg public sector salaries directly to equivalent size private sector ones at all, because the people seeking public sector jobs are, according to you, less interested in absolute salary levels, and therefore would accept jobs with lower salaries.

Most public sector workers already earn less than the equivalent roles in the private sector, so what's your point? Salaries are set at the minimum level needed to attract the right person, no more.

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i think that, in reality, the majority of public sector employees did not actively seek out the additional benefits of working in the public sector, but simply applied for a job they thought they could do at a salary they were prepared to work for.

Only partially true. I decided to aim for the public sector because I was fed up of being 'bodyshopped' in the private sector consultancy I was working for.

Kohoutek

marklv wrote: »

Hard cheese...Besides which, if you're not happy in your job, go elsewhere.

Do you know that recessions have a great effect on the number of jobs that are available, outside the magical money world of the public sector?

What do you recommend you do if you're working in the private sector and you're not happy paying for the vast army of grasping mediocrities in the public sector?