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

Davesnave

stueyhants wrote: »

Serious question, how many hours do teachers do on an annual basis considering half terms and summer holidays etc ? Is it significantly more than say an 'average' worker doing a 40 hour week ?

No, I would say it works out about the same, but an 'average' worker doesn't do 6 of those hours per day at the same intensity as a teacher. It is a bit like a stage performance and takes its toll through the adrenaline released, which is why people go into the staff room at 11 am and consume vast amounts of high energy food.

Of course there are the Tommy Coopers who make it all look easy, but we know what happened to him!

There will be someone on here in a minute to rant on about the summer holidays, but with the amount of tests, reports and other end of year activities we did, I used to 'lose' most of June and July, so I thought that worked out about even too.

Knowing many teachers, I'd imagine striking will be one of the last things they will want to do. A significant number aren't in the NUT because, like me, they find its belligerent left of centre approach hard to reconcile with their own stance. A couple of people on here have already stated that they feel adequately paid, and maybe that's because most teachers don't go into the job for the monetary rewards.

Really2

Alan_Cross wrote: »

I'm all for pay freezes...

... and as soon as you can assure me that all those [STRIKE]useless, waste-of-space, leering, red-braces moron-prats[/STRIKE] fine city gents have agreed to come on board the concept, I'll be the first to accept that you can apply it to people who are on vastly lower remuneration.

Genuinely, we have some total to$$ers posting on these threads...

No pay rise for me or my staff during the recession? So who are the these of you speak of, I can't remember any city bankers on the thread?

Really2

marklv wrote: »

I fully agree with the unions and I will definitely be voting for a strike myself if current plans don't change.

Mmmm so you think your pay rise is more important than the rest of the country so others should lose jobs and taxed higher as a result.
You are typical of what is wrong with the public sector, any change that does not mean wage inflation results in a strike, no matter the mess the country are in.

You may blame the bankers but you want to punish everyone for your pay rises and pensions.
And who lose out in the strikes, children.
What a sad state of affairs in the current climate that some still think pay rises should be given no matter what.

PS here is what is wrong with the pension structure? that is not my fault so I presume you do not mind paying more then????
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8604112.stm

Pennywise

marklv wrote: »

The concept of 'sharing the pain' is petty, nasty and vindictive, and a kick in the teeth to all the public sector workers who have had to endure difficult and demanding occupations for modest pay.

What about the 99.9% of private sector workers who don't work in the City and don't get bonuses, work hard, get little reward (average pay for private sector is less than average for public sector). What about the majority of private sector employees who don't have generous pension schemes funded by their employer or where the employer has gone bust leaving a bankrupt pension scheme? Following your logic, they should suffer, despite not enjoying the benefits, but public sector workers shouldn't suffer. That's some crazy thinking!!!

lostinrates

Alan_Cross wrote: »

I'm all for pay freezes...

... and as soon as you can assure me that all those [STRIKE]useless, waste-of-space, leering, red-braces moron-prats[/STRIKE] fine city gents have agreed to come on board the concept, I'll be the first to accept that you can apply it to people who are on vastly lower remuneration.

Genuinely, we have some total to$$ers posting on these threads...

There certainly are to$$ers about, I agree.

Anyway, to the point you raise, ...the ''normal'' alaried people in the City seem to have taken cuts or freezes. My DH is City Lawyer, and I posted a link recently that some firms are allowing people to rises up the bands (i.e. pay levels still reflected however many years qualified) but that the bands have been frozen. I know some people in other city firms who have taken pay cuts. New entrants have been deferred for a year, sometimes with a small amount of money, some times with nothing. Many, many were made redundant. More still aren't being replaced.

My husband had contracted payrises phrased ''not less than'' and absolutely they have not been less than, but they certainly weren't more than either! With bonuses, there was discussion and while some to$$ers complained, DH and many of his peers put their vite for losing minimising their bonuses, but keeping support staff jobs (and Christmas envelopes). Perhaps it would be a better world if people, public or private sector, only received bonuses if there were not to$$ers but I'm fairly sure that would be more expensive to administrate.

lostinrates

Davesnave wrote: »

No, I would say it works out about the same, but an 'average' worker doesn't do 6 of those hours per day at the same intensity as a teacher. It is a bit like a stage performance and takes its toll through the adrenaline released, which is why people go into the staff room at 11 am and consume vast amounts of high energy food.

Of course there are the Tommy Coopers who make it all look easy, but we know what happened to him!

There will be someone on here in a minute to rant on about the summer holidays, but with the amount of tests, reports and other end of year activities we did, I used to 'lose' most of June and July, so I thought that worked out about even too.

Knowing many teachers, I'd imagine striking will be one of the last things they will want to do. A significant number aren't in the NUT because, like me, they find its belligerent left of centre approach hard to reconcile with their own stance. A couple of people on here have already stated that they feel adequately paid, and maybe that's because most teachers don't go into the job for the monetary rewards.

I accept, and of ourse from my own limit experience know, how exhausting teaching and lecturing (and prep and marking) can be. I think frontline sales must be pretty hard...people in mobile phone shops sometimes seem to have sugar rushes to me, I think people, who for example, bid for large contracts for a company: that must be simialrly drining: plus have the fear factor of no win-no money to be paid with! I think anysort of physical labour must, in turn, be physically draining....

there are many ways in which to be tested by employment, and there are different pay offs and disadvantages with them. That's really not the entire point. Its a skill level: one expects a good teacher to be a graduate, with good communications skills. these are people ideally who have OPTED not to take their skills to industry: not, by preference, those who have failed in proffering their skills to industry. Even then, there is a choice in teaching between public and private sector. And teaching children rather than pursuing academia and lecturing...offering scope for progression.

shane42

marklv wrote: »

A reality check? Why should people accept pay cuts as a matter of course? Would you if you worked in the public sector? Me thinks not. Cutting pay and initiating redundancy programmes isn't going to make much difference when it comes to tackling government debt. It's just good headlines for the Daily Mail readers.

yes i would take a pay cut, i have taken a pay cut infact, i would rather earn something then nothing..i am realistic

lostinrates

shane42 wrote: »

yes i would take a pay cut, i have taken a pay cut infact, i would rather earn something then nothing..i am realistic

we talked about it at home and with a select number of dh's colleagues and we agreed DH and some peers would opt for a percentage paycut (preferably graded) over job cuts/change in business practice areas over a five year period.

Redundancy and last in first out was also a consideration when DH was recently approached and offered more by another firm. A firm that has showed loyalty to its staff when few others did/were able to is a firm worth staying in in a nervous market.

Really2

lostinrates wrote: »

I accept, and of ourse from my own limit experience know, how exhausting teaching and lecturing (and prep and marking) can be. I think frontline sales must be pretty hard...people in mobile phone shops sometimes seem to have sugar rushes to me, I think people, who for example, bid for large contracts for a company: that must be simialrly drining: plus have the fear factor of no win-no money to be paid with! I think anysort of physical labour must, in turn, be physically draining....

As a nipper (well 17) i did 2 jobs 7:30am -11pm with 1H brake in total (1/2 hour lunch in the one job then 1/2 between jobs) in total 6 days a week. 87H week for not much money (but it got me my first car).
2nd job which was selling to coprates was 52H+ a week and most of the wage was commission based (very low basic).
So many do very long hours but I can imagine teaching can be very stress full term time, especially how some children are now a days.

lostinrates

Really2 wrote: »

As a nipper (well 17) i did 2 jobs 7:30am -11pm with 1H brake in total (1/2 hour lunch in the one job then 1/2 between jobs) in total 6 days a week. 87H week for not much money (but it got me my first car).
2nd job which was selling to coprates was 52H+ a week and most of the wage was commission based (very low basic).
So many do very long hours but I can imagine teaching can be very stress full term time, especially how some children are now a days.

Exactly.

As a ''nipper'' you presumably had lower skill levels than most teachers/other grads, so it would make sense you had lower pay per hour.

In fact, a friend recently suggested I do a PGCE and I was horrified. To have someone whose spelling/memory is so erratic and who would fade out through the day at about the same pace as a child seems a recipe for a disaster and poor teaching.