[TW]Fox;20706783 said:I can't imagine many nurses get paid £40k PA
£40k isn't much according to the BBC, it is quite a struggle to live on just that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15197860
30/11 Strikes.
- Thread starter wordy
- Start date
£40k isn't much according to the BBC, it is quite a struggle to live on just that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15197860
[TW]Fox;20706783 said:I can't imagine many nurses get paid £40k PA
Ward managers (nurse) will be on band 7 which tops out at £40k. A normal nurse will be on band 5 which tops out at £30k.
To get a £30k pension they would have to have started as a ward manager which is unlikely and work a full 45 years.
@ dirtydog And you do know that the amount of nurses in any hospital you will find on 40k are the ones at the very top ie a handful (literally) per hospital most are on 25k. So if you think 40k for someone who most likely has 20 years experience, in charge of a whole department and a Masters degree is overpaid then that's your opinion. So you can misrepresent it if you want that's what both sides are doing.
I had had this talk with Dolph countless times and even he agrees that this is a problem that there are highly talented and qualified and experienced nurses that are paid a pittance for what they are doing because of namely 2 reasons a) society does not appreciate them - if they did they would be paid the same as police, fireman, teachers who generally have to do less qualifications and are at no more "risk" b) national payscales mean that people who are qualified and talented have no financial career path other than going into management.
If you were in my position a few months ago with a 2month baby on a ITU would you want any old muppet on 18k controlling the ventilator and the inotropes or someone who was properly trained and motivated and rewarded for that. Guess you won't know till you've been there and actually have a clue what some people do.
I had had this talk with Dolph countless times and even he agrees that this is a problem that there are highly talented and qualified and experienced nurses that are paid a pittance for what they are doing because of namely 2 reasons a) society does not appreciate them - if they did they would be paid the same as police, fireman, teachers who generally have to do less qualifications and are at no more "risk" b) national payscales mean that people who are qualified and talented have no financial career path other than going into management.
If you were in my position a few months ago with a 2month baby on a ITU would you want any old muppet on 18k controlling the ventilator and the inotropes or someone who was properly trained and motivated and rewarded for that. Guess you won't know till you've been there and actually have a clue what some people do.
At no point have I or AFAIK anyone else said that all nurses are on £40k
Or that they all have £30k pensions. I am sure neither is the case.I am equally sure that they are far from badly paid nor get an un-generous pension related to their work or what their contributions are.
Issue for me is that it's just too damn hard to sack a crap teacher, same goes for several other public sector careers. It's partly because of these incompetent layabouts that give the public sector a reputation for 'seeking the easy road' in my eyes.
Sure give competitive pay, being a nurse/teacher/other can be a hard job, but make it so that those that suck at it can't coast along with it.
Sure give competitive pay, being a nurse/teacher/other can be a hard job, but make it so that those that suck at it can't coast along with it.
To true, partly unions and partl, becuase the management are usuless. Why, becuase they are promoted from within. Usually on years worked. Rather than any skill. It's got slightly better recently. But it's still massively flawed.
Yes, I remember reading about a study which showed that demonstrably incompetent teachers were usually not sacked altogether, but merely moved to another school.
Or, when challenged, they go on leave with 'stress', only coming back in for a few days before long holidays. Reason for this is that if they're off work for too long their pay drops significantly however if they work for a week before the summer term, that gets 7 (1 week of real work plus 6 weeks on holiday which counts as working) of their iirc 8 weeks in a year to keep them on near-full pay.
Mental.
(The figures used in the above are merely guesstimates from what i've witnessed in my own workplace, they're probably not entirely accurate, it may be 8 weeks in 6 months that's required for example, but it's still an insane system seeing as holidays count as long as they're in work before the holiday starts)
Last edited:
Or be advised by union to go off with stress for so long they can't be investigated peoperly.
I know my sectors not technically public but we have 6months full sick pay.
That too.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I suspect everyone in the public sector thinks the private sector is a utopia of bonus's, corporate hospitality and random payrises whereas everyone in the private sector thinks the public sector is full of enormous salaries and zero redundancies.
I'd imagine the reality is somewhere in the middle for both.
Strikes are the answer to few, if any, problems.
I'd imagine the reality is somewhere in the middle for both.
Strikes are the answer to few, if any, problems.
[TW]Fox;20707009 said:
Too true, as someone who works in the public sector (teacher), has a father who also works in the public sector (headteacher) but has a mother (programmer for British Airways), sister (accountant) and brother in law (soon to be hedge fund manager) who work in the private sector I like to think i stand in a relatively well informed position.
Neither employment path is a cakewalk, however i would say the private sector has a much greater scope for making money but that comes at the cost of much greater risk.
I wouldn't say any of us have a job that is easier/harder than the other, just different.
COME ON FOXY
Associate
- Joined
- 6 May 2009
- Posts
- 566
I'd agree broadly with this and add that everyone should try and see through the private V's public rhetoric that benefits politicians (include union leaders here if you want) and mega-earners far more than joe bloggs in either public or private sector employment.
[TW]Fox;20707009 said:
Complete rubbish!
I have spent 10+ years in the private sector and recently moved to the public sector.
I joined the oil and gas industry at the end of its hay day in 1998 where a project could afford a free night on the town for over 100 people. To extreme penny pinching, cuts in pensions, strikes by draughtsmen over 9 hour days.....
The public sector is completly different to the private sector. The expectations and the level of stress be it a Teacher or an IT worker. To compare the 2 is completly subjective.
Example. IT Service desk pay in Oil and Gas Industry is average 18k
Public Sector pay: 18k
Each area has its pro's in cons for me in regards how safe the job is, career progression, use of technology, speed of change, and how suseptable it is to review and government influence.
Public sector workers can opt out of pension schemes if they wish. With the government pushing private pensions on top of state pensions it is no wonder public sector worker are pushing for a better deal.
