I donot disagree with that isofar as there are low paid and poor conditions in the public sector, only that the comparable jobs in the private sector are invariably even worse. They are not being punished disproportionately compared their peers in the private sector, in many cases quite the opposite.
27% turnout yet they are still going on strike.
- Thread starter Danthus
- Start date
I donot disagree with that isofar as there are low paid and poor conditions in the public sector, only that the comparable jobs in the private sector are invariably even worse. They are not being punished disproportionately compared their peers in the private sector, in many cases quite the opposite.
You miss my point, the punchbag isn't in reference to T&C's.. it's the complaint in the quote about the tone and attitude of Government.
I'm not aware of too many private sector firms that blame their staff publically for being 'blockers of change' and so on and so forth before they've even taken over the role.
Actually one of the main differences between private and public sector is the attitude trust and language used between the official side or management and the staff. Often in the civil service any attempts to provide praise by board members within departments is undone by politically contrived comments criticising specifically, or en masse.
I'm sure it has happened in the private sector, but it isn't prevailent. Many senior board members will resign to protect the staff and reputation of their organisation, while in the public sector it can and often is the opposite of that.
They don't and they aren't. A minority are being vocal, and the rest are fed up with a barage of attacks by the public and Government and tending to follow the vocal agents out because of it. Perhaps an answer to this would be for the private sector to become more vocal about what issues they face within their employment beyond their current minority if people are fed up with specifically public sector workers publically airing their disagreements with their employer.
People are far too sort sighted with this them and us culture; dismantle and errode the civic pillar of public service at your peril.
Just this year? Many people irrespective of the sector they work in have faced real term cuts for years now. I don't think anyone is under the illusion it's all peachy?
Haha.
Wait until market facing pay comes in.
Women working for the Westminster Civil Service in Scotland are lined up for a cut in wages of over 25% according to the evidence provided by the Cabinet Office.
In fact the only place in the UK that will benefit from it will be.... the South East.
A local election in my borough (Newham) had a turnout of 18%. People were elected based on the opinion of 18% of the registered voters.
Yeah, above average wages, below average working hours and above average holiday entitlement......sounds pretty rough.
To be fair to them though they moan too much about the marking they have to do in the evenings and claim they do the odd course during the summer holidays etc.. I do think they probably are a bit underpaid for their level of qualification (at least undergrad degree + a year's worth of post grad/on the job training) and responsibilities - they do have 25 or so people reporting to them (even if they are just kids).
While they might be above the average wage, the average wage isn't very much - compared to some of the other jobs maths, science grads etc.. can get I'm not surprised there is often a shortage in those subjects. In fact for a good maths grad from a good uni - teaching is probably about the lowest paid profession going.
Your precious Tories have been voted in from similar numbers, you hypocrite.
Private sector management use the same terminology, the on,y difference is that there is no opposition with a political axe to grind.
Nonsense....management are as liable to treat the staff with as divisive and disrespectful an attitude in the private sector as they are in the public sector..in many way more so as there is no political aspect to consider.
Haha....not in the real world. Generally they are either forced out because of a threat to the companies profit margins or over some conflict with shareholders or directors, rarely if ever to protect staff.
Who said just this year?....since 2008 they ave suffered actual (not real term) pay decreases and contracted bonuses were until this year retracted using the 90 day change of terms notice...my wife actually earns 22% less today than 4 years ago as a direct comparision, in real terms that would be a larger percentage....This is in a profitable and growing company.....and this kind of story is repeated thoughout the private sector, with companies taking advantage of the perception of stagnation and recession to increase profitability at the expense of their workforce (at all levels)...it was one of the reasons I left my former position, I was opposed to the way the board was trying to attack T&Cs even though we were in record growth, using the economic situation as a smokescreen....at least in the Public Sector it is because their is no money, not because it is opportunistic.
The point is that the Public Sector is not unique and in many ways they are in a better position than their directly comparable private sector peers. And it is that misperception that riles me.
Last edited:
It is hard in all sectors, my industry is care homes and home care and they have both been a source of cost saving by the local authority. Not only are we having to pay rising costs but also get our fees reduced by the LA. The Carehomes fees have been frozen for 3 years and the home care has har their fees reduced by 9.5% and fixed for the duration of the contract which is 4 years.
The pay for carers is dreadful but is dictated by the fees we get paid. An example is a home carer will be paid £6.80 and hour & 35p per mile will work from 7am often to 11pm at nights travelling from house to house. Home carers are only paid for the work they do so they dont get paid inbetween clients.
I would say teachers have it cushty.
The pay for carers is dreadful but is dictated by the fees we get paid. An example is a home carer will be paid £6.80 and hour & 35p per mile will work from 7am often to 11pm at nights travelling from house to house. Home carers are only paid for the work they do so they dont get paid inbetween clients.
I would say teachers have it cushty.
Just to add some numbers, last year's graduates for a large petrochemical company were on £32k, plus benefits, and a possible bonus. A fair bit higher than the £22k my friend started teaching on, but also far, far more difficult to get on to.
They do?
I'm not so sure it is normal in the private sector at all.
In large organisations some evidence would certainly disagree, I'll see if I can dig the stuff out at home..
In smaller organisations who knows, but in comparible situations no I think the private sector is much more apt and able and willing to protect itself and reputation by protecting its staff especially in communications that become public, or opinions aired in public. Disengagement is a problem across the economy, but the causes can be different even if the outcome is pretty similar.
I disagree, watching a fair few ex chairmen and board men in the PAC's many of them seemed to genuinely express remorse for the position laid upon many innocent staff, particuarly in reference to the multitude of banking scandles but not exlusively, and also outwith parliament.
There is no generalisation trully appropriate for the private sector as their employer varies and thus you have differing approaches, with the public and civil service you have one employer and a single approach. And attitude essentially. That's Government.
Oh it's opportunistic, why is a Tory Government going to act any different to any other employer as you see it?
That is their mantra and reason for existance essentially.
I can't take this seriously, sorry.
Last edited:
Because they don't want to? Simply because somebody describes the position that teachers are in as good, doesn't mean they automatically want to be a teacher... That's just silly logic.
For example my friend who's started teaching, I think she's done well and good a good job out of it, doesn't mean I'd ever want to do it though. I simply have no interest in teaching.
which is exactly why they need some of the 'good' !
not enough people want to be teachers as it is , nevermind if you took their holidays/pay etc away and forced kids to spend all summer at school
some people on here make out like teaching is a dream job when actually its a vital role that needs a higher amount of decent candidates if we dont want our children to grow up to be stupid
schools are overcrowded , classes are too big , there will be a huge schools and teaching boom needed soon to match our population growth. do we want people that want to teach or do we want people who took the job because its all thats left
Last edited:
Herald Scotland said:
There's more, specifically with a comparison between private and public sector employers but I'm struggling to find it.
I'll post back here when I find the rest of the materials I don't have at home.
Here is N. Clarkes larger assessment on engagement across the sectors, with comparative examples, for the BIS;
www.bis.gov.uk/files/file52215.pdf
A brief bit from the NHS perspective; specifically N. Clarke - section title Engagement bridging the public sector gap
http://www.nhsemployers.org/Employm...lkit/Pages/Regionalstaffengagementevents.aspx
Again it's only brief, I don't have my materials to hand or document titles embedded into my head like some can manage.
Last edited:
Yeah, above average wages, below average working hours and above average holiday entitlement......sounds pretty rough.
Don't you need a degree to be a teacher? How does the wage of being a teacher compare to other jobs that require degrees?
Comparable.....with good career high earning potential. Junior Doctor starting salary is £22,412, teaching starting salary is £22,800. Average starting salary for graduates ranges from £17,720 to £23, 335.
http://www.hecsu.ac.uk/research_reports_what_do_graduates_do_2011.htm
A FY1 doctor is still very much in training while earning that wage. And while the starting salary is low the career progression is fairly quick from that point onwards.
To boost your argument with a better comparison, a nurse earns 21k starting salary increasing to 27k once at the top of their band.
From page 5 of the report that you've linked to:
Table 2. Range of average salaries of full time, first degree 2010 leavers who entered full-time employment in the UK by type of work
Health professionals (e.g. doctors, dentists and pharmacists) £23,430 - £26,955
Teaching professionals (e.g. secondary and primary school teachers) £19,195 - £23,000
You've listed a figure for junior doctor below the minimum given for health professionals.
Nurses are essential in the modern composition and operation of hospitals. Teachers are too for society, I don't see why there has to be an argument for a race to the bottom.
For what? The winner takes it all society? I live in a country, not a casino.