Most underpaid profession?

James_B.

RuthnJasper wrote: »

It isn't what they do day-to-day. It is what they are prepared to do in the dire straits of tragedy and frightening situations that warrants better pay.

I'd much rather they were paid from my taxes for sitting around all day than the alternative... I have seen at first hand the selflessness of the emergency services in horrific situations. They are better people than I could ever even aspire to be.

Are you suggesting that all jobs have their pay based on moral worth, or only emergency services?

What do you reckon, £200k for firemen, £100k for teachers, £80k for bin men, £200k for carers, £200k for soldiers, £150k for police?..

James_B.

Marktheshark wrote: »

None of the people who do the swanning around could build anything.

That's quite an ignorant generalisation.

kingfisherblue

I agree that care workers are often the most underpaid, as well as being unappreciated by many. My daughter is a care worker, but is in huge fortunate position of being employed in a retirement village where she is appreciated enough by management to earn a wage above that of moats care workers. She earns about £2 an hour above minimum wage.

You might be able to enter care work without many qualifications, but most places require you to do 'on the job' training to level 2 or 3. Then there are the training for First Aid, lifting and handling (including hoists), tube feeding, tracheotomies, medications, dressings, dementia patients, and many more. My daughter has had to do all of these and more, and several require annual trainings by her company. She is, quite rightly, subject to spot checks.

She has to deal with changing and cleaning adults who need personal care - some who are uncooperative. She cooks meals for them. She fills in paperwork. She has to try to persuade residents to take their medications, and then has to inform her line manager if meds have been refused. She has to check the meds even though they are in blister packed boxes - mistakes have been known to be made. She has to get people four times her age into and out of bed.

She does it because she loves it. Originally, she took the job because she hated the two months she spent job seeking. However, she found that despite its drawbacks, she really enjoys her work. The worst part is when someone dies. She then attends the funeral on her day off, if the family allow it ( and assuming it occurs on her day off).

None of us know if or when we will need help with personal care, but we should recognise that it is a growing industry as people live longer and as families no longer stay close to their older members and look after them themselves. Unfortunately, for many, this means a low paid job, with little understanding or appreciation from others.

JReacher1

worried_jim wrote: »

My friend is a pediatric nurse, she owns two houses, drives a Merc and works three nights a week- don't be fooled about nurses earning !!!! money!

Your friend does not fund a 2 house lifestyle and a merc on a 3 nights a week nurses salary.

I suspect she is either married to someone wealthy or she is dealing drugs

Pennywise

Surely whether someone is well paid or not depends on the area where they live. PS workers in a city like London are probably grossly underpaid when you consider the cost of living, but out in the sticks, in deprived areas, it's the PS jobs that are sought after and suck the quality staff away from the private sector, and the PS workers who live in the "nice middle class" areas with the 4/5 bed homes. That's the fundamental flaw in national pay agreements. If pay reflected local conditions, then the same "pot" could fund increases for the expensive areas and adjust the pay in the cheaper areas - no net cost overall.

mrkidd85

Pennywise wrote: »

Surely whether someone is well paid or not depends on the area where they live. PS workers in a city like London are probably grossly underpaid when you consider the cost of living, but out in the sticks, in deprived areas, it's the PS jobs that are sought after and suck the quality staff away from the private sector, and the PS workers who live in the "nice middle class" areas with the 4/5 bed homes. That's the fundamental flaw in national pay agreements. If pay reflected local conditions, then the same "pot" could fund increases for the expensive areas and adjust the pay in the cheaper areas - no net cost overall.

Saying PS workers is incredibly confusing since public and private sectors are both PS

starrystarry

FBaby wrote: »

Ultimately, as a rule, salaries increase with responsibility and risk rather than actual duties.

Ie. an employee does a very demanding physical job whilst his boss takes it easy in the office. However, if the employee was to have an deadly accident at work, even if it was the result of his negligence, but it was found that the boss failed in some health and safety check, despite having nothing to do with the death, he could end up in jail for a number of years.

If you are more at risk of a finger being pointed at you when something goes wrong, the more likely you are to earn more.

I agree with this. Rightly or wrongly, salary if often related to responsibility/risk rather than how demanding the job is. I earn more than most nurses but my job is far less demanding (physically at least) and nowhere near as stressful as I imagine nursing is. I have to make decisions that can have big financial implications though, so I guess my pay reflects that. I think scarcity comes into it as well. My job is fairly specialised, there aren't many of us so companies have to pay a decent salary to employ us.

Not saying this is right, I do think some professions are grossly undervalued.

PlymouthMaid

When I said some jobs require little training I probably phrased it lazily as what I mean really is that the entry qualifications are low or non existent (the home my Dad is in advertised recently and no qualifications were needed). Of course this does not mean (hopefully) that the staff remain untrained but they still do not have 3+ years of student loan hanging around their necks.

Andy_L

JReacher1 wrote: »

Your friend does not fund a 2 house lifestyle and a merc on a 3 nights a week nurses salary.

I suspect she is either married to someone wealthy or she is dealing drugs

or perhaps she's a band 8 who lives in Wales

Andy_L

Pennywise wrote: »

Surely whether someone is well paid or not depends on the area where they live. PS workers in a city like London are probably grossly underpaid when you consider the cost of living, but out in the sticks, in deprived areas, it's the PS jobs that are sought after and suck the quality staff away from the private sector, and the PS workers who live in the "nice middle class" areas with the 4/5 bed homes. That's the fundamental flaw in national pay agreements. If pay reflected local conditions, then the same "pot" could fund increases for the expensive areas and adjust the pay in the cheaper areas - no net cost overall.

but do you think that the likely outcome of moving to regional pay would be both an increase in the expensive areas & a reduction in the cheaper, or would it just be a reduction in the cheaper areas?

How much less than £21k can you pay a starting teacher or nurse etc before they will join the brain-drain out of poor pay areas