The claims are not totally unfounded however, as part of the reason why the Unions are calling for strike action is the Government pay freeze in the Public Sector. They are effective striking for more money at the same time as protesting against the changes in their working conditions.
Here we go again, teachers striking again...
- Thread starter djkav
- Start date
The claims are not totally unfounded however, as part of the reason why the Unions are calling for strike action is the Government pay freeze in the Public Sector. They are effective striking for more money at the same time as protesting against the changes in their working conditions.
Many teachers signed up knowing they were taking a pay cut from the jobs they could have taken for the main reason of job satisfaction and pension. No teacher can keep up with teenagers up to the age of 68 that the Government is now requiring.
Soldato
That would be sound logic if inflation didn't exist.
They are not talking about cutting Teacher Salaries, but reforming the system so that the system is more effective, sustainable and doesn't funnel money out of the education system into supporting unsustainable pensions and poor standards.
I understand perfectly how the trade union system works, having been part of the arguably most militant union in the UK, and I do not blame anyone for opposing changes in their conditions that they do not agree with. However, I do not agree with the way in which the issue is being artificially turned into an ideological one, and the truth is that teachers are striking to protect their personal benefits, pensions and salaries, they are not striking because of some altruistic opposition to a lowering of education standards or protection of our children education.
Rightly or wrongly, they are striking for purely selfish reasons, which is their right and in their position I may well do the same, however call a spade a spade and don't try to make it look like a wheelbarrow.
Teachers can retire at a much earlier age, currently 50...this would increase to 55 and with the option of a phased retirement, but again, if other professions, many which are far more physical and in some cases stressful can work until 68, why can't teachers, especially with the phased retirement procedures available to them....
In any case the TSP is still far more generous that the rest of the Public Sector and far more generous than the vast majority of the private sector.
The biggest issue I think is the increased contributions, which dependent on salary are as high as 8.8%.....which is lower than some, but higher than many. They still recieve more benefit than they contribute however, so even with the changes to the pensions the State, and therefore you and I are subsidising teachers pension benefits.
Soldato
In the private sector there has been instances like at Honda that the management asked workers whether they were happy to take a pay cut or lose jobs and the workers voted for a pay cut. When the reality of the situation hits you have to make choices, it just seems some of the public sector never want to budge on anything, not even to improve.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
Don't I bloody know it, most of the teachers where I work can't even turn a TV on or follow simple instructions.
And that might be sound logic if the £1 trillion of unsustainable government debt didn't exist.
I suppose they could print money, but then inflation would just get worse.
There is no money to pay for this stuff.
The only way to actually fix things long-term is about a 50% CUT across the board for the public sector AND a raise on taxes. That's what people should be preparing for. Half of those teachers will be lucky to be employed at all in 5 years.
Soldato
What makes it unsustainable? We can't pay it back, why bother making actual people's lives worse over what's really a very insignificant change in a massive number?
There are ways that teachers can increase their salary, this includes the AST, ETS and TLR systems for those who wish to take on extra responsibility or have advanced skills.
Like in any profession you get out what you put in.
Soldato
Doing more work to get the same amount of money or doing the same amount of work to get less money? Doesn't sound like a very appealing choice.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
When support had a cut last year I was landing with more work same money. I don't mind it's a job.
It is not about more workload, but improving your skills and there is also a post-threshold payscale that teachers can be assessed against to also improve their pay.
Unfortunately there is no such thing as a free ride, and as with everything in life Permabanned, we all get out what we put in to it......
It is a difficult situation, teaching staff want to be paid as much as they can, the schools need to control expenditure, the Children need a good education, all this needs to be balanced and sustainable financially....also the education system needs to reform, not least of all allowing Headteachers to easily replace poor performing and substandard teachers and reward those who are productive and get results....unfortunately the Unions are also opposed to this.
Last edited:
Soldato
Well the idea of a salary has been around for years so doing more work to get the same amount of money is nothing new and something people do up and down the country. Believe it or not many people do it for the success of the companies they work for, perhaps when you grow up, you might experience it.
What don't you understand. The money to pay them has to come from somewhere. Eventually that money "number" turns out to be you know tangible things... food, clothes, petrol, steel and things.
You think the government can buy that stuff with numbers in a computer? There has to be actual work and products that can be traded for it.
The last 30 odd years the government has been trading promises of future work/produce for those things. That era is coming to and end. It just came to an end for Greece. It's about to come to an end for the rest of Europe soon. Do you understand yet?
The ratio of "numbers" to actual resources has been hugely inflated and needs to come back down to a functional level. That means being forced to cut spending massively (like 50%). If it doesn't and they just keep bumping up the number people literally won't have food to eat. There won't be any imports because the money will be worthless.
Caporegime
LOL.
The nation's birth rate is booming right now, whose going to teach our kids? Unqualified teachers such as ex-military staff? Oh wait, yeah they are. I forgot the Tories were in charge.
Caporegime
So because you're a walk-over, everyone else should be?
Soldato
Who with?
Everyone!
Go to Tesco and look at where the food comes from. Kenya, South Africa, Turkey, New Zealand, Germany. If you're a teacher you're paying for it with government money. That money was borrowed from investors who think they will get paid back (with interest).
If people stop lending that money, there's no money to pay teachers, who can't pay Tesco, who can't pay the farmer in Kenya.
If the government creates a bigger number in the computer, the farmer in Kenya notices and starts charging more for his green beans.
There's no way around it. Government expenditure has to come from tax revenue.
That's basically why all that stuff happened in Tunisia/Egypt from food inflation.