Teachers Strike

[TheLord]

Well that's the true figure that my wife works, and that is the minimum she works, if you want to call me a liar then that's your problem not mine. To be honest it's probably closer to 60 hours but, as I said, I was being generous. I've broken it down. Maybe you would like to tell me how many hours my wife works and break it down.

I'm not sure where your calculations are coming from, they work 39 weeks a year for starters and I've already shown they work more hours per year than most people.

Judging by your maths maybe there is a problem with education.

The whole point of the strike, much like our strike, is that the pay rise equates to a pay-cut when taking inflation into account. I doesn't matter how much they earn or how many holidays they do or don't get, it's still a pay cut fixed for 3 years. I'm amazed when people on this site think it's okay for teachers to get a pay-cut but not us.

[dvbuk55]

Look at the figures - even if it is 39 weeks - that would be 22k / 39 which = £564 per week and is still £100 per week more than someone working 48 weeks - so in order to justify the very short working year there seems to be a preponderance to increase the hours they supposedly work to justify an even bigger wage discrepancy and that in view of the failure of the education system to provide an adequate education. Rather like the NHS the more money we pour in to education the worse the performance seems to be.

Teachers if my memory serves me are salaried and not hourly paid so it can hardly be justified to claim excessive hours worked - but what the hell lets get 'em clocking on and off and just pay them for those hours.

[TheLord]

Look at the figures - even if it is 39 weeks - that would be 22k / 39 which = £564 per week and is still £100 per week more than someone working 48 weeks - so in order to justify the very short working year there seems to be a preponderance to increase the hours they supposedly work to justify an even bigger wage discrepancy and that in view of the failure of the education system to provide an adequate education. Rather like the NHS the more money we pour in to education the worse the performance seems to be.

Teachers if my memory serves me are salaried and not hourly paid so it can hardly be justified to claim excessive hours worked - but what the hell lets get 'em clocking on and off and just pay them for those hours.

I totally disagree with you about the NHS and education, they are both better than they have ever been. I'd love to see some facts as to why you think they are worse.

I still can't understand your maths and have a degree in the bloody subject! You seem to be hung-up on the weekly figures which doesn't make sense, like comparing apples and oranges. The only fair way to compare it is by using hours.

An analogy would be someone who works four 10 hour days to someone working five 8 hour days. They both work 40 hrs a week but per day the person working 10 hour days earns more. Would you say that person is higher paid or has more holidays?No, their working pattern is different that's all. It's the same with teaching.

It seems Joe Public is hung up (jealous) about the amount of holidays teachers get rather than the straightforward fact that they are effectively getting a pay-cut.

BTW teachers get more than 22K, I'm not sure where you've got that figure from. Here is the main Pay Scale for outside London:


SEPT 2007 £ SEPT 2008 £ SEPT 2008 £ SEPT 2009 £ SEPT 2010 £
proposed if pay had proposed proposed
matched inflation

MAIN PAY SCALE
1 20,133 20627 21,607 21,101 21,587
2 21,726 22259 23,315 22,771 23,295
3 23,472 24,048 25,191 24,601 25,167
4 25,278 25,898 27,129 26,494 27,103
5 27,270 27,939 29,267 28,582 29,239
6 29,427 30,148 31,579 30,841 31,551

From these figures you can see that the proposed deal means that over the next 3 years the pay rise amounts less than 1 year at inflation, so that's 3 years of pay-cuts. Would you be happy with that deal if you were a teacher?

[dvbuk55]

I have based it on weeks because that IS the fairest way. If you are paid an annual salary but only work three quarters of that compared to someone who works 48/52nds then obviously your remuneration is proportionately greater because despite what you say, the story doesn't gel. If you insist that hours count then why not put that forward as a solution and have them become hourly paid? As for the education system being better - you are obviously judging standards on figures provided by the Government and not on reality.

In all this discussion I haven't seen any allusion whatsoever to "Teachers Aids" - surely they must take some of the overwhelming burden.

As an aside I have just driven by my local school on my way home about 55 minutes ago - guess what - yep the car park was empty! They must all be at home preparing lessons they've prepared every single day for how many years and marking all that homework.

[dvbuk55]

I have based it on weeks because that IS the fairest way. If you are paid an annual salary but only work three quarters of that compared to someone who works 48/52nds then obviously your remuneration is proportionately greater because despite what you say, the story doesn't gel. If you insist that hours count then why not put that forward as a solution and have them become hourly paid? As for the education system being better - you are obviously judging standards on figures provided by the Government and not on reality.

In all this discussion I haven't seen any allusion whatsoever to "Teachers Aids" - surely they must take some of the overwhelming burden.

As an aside I have just driven by my local school on my way home about 55 minutes ago - guess what - yep the car park was empty! They must all be at home preparing lessons they've prepared every single day for how many years and marking all that homework.

mine isnt empty .parents evening...and guess what,i couldn't believe my frickin eyes the teachers make the prefects out of school hours walk around with a tea trolley serving only the teachers tea and coffee

Well I suppose you need perks when you are working so many hours. Incidentally my sons school held parents evening just once a year in Mid January when it was dark, dismal and filthy weather. Not that it was a bad school, he had 10 GCSEs and 4 A Levels, College and University.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

again mr bias,being pedantic isnt an insult its an observation which in this case is clearly correct.i am also pedantic and biased at times as can we all....

secondly you do get paid twice to deliver them.you get paid a wage to perform your duities do you not?and the prep and delivery of the d2d is built into duty time is it not?so you get paid once correct?then you get paid again 1.67p a leaflet and up..

now forgive me if im slightly as stupid as others but thats twice to me

Adding the term Mr to an adjective can be seen as an insult - If you had described me as being pedantic that is ok its not an insult but by saying Mr Pedantic it can be seen as an insult - yes I am being pedantic.

If you believe that we should not get paid twice for D2Ds which appears to be the thrust of your argument then by all means deliver them but don't claim for them. If however you believe as I do that we have a separate contract in which we deliver D2Ds during our delivery and prep them during the preparation of mail, then do it and claim.

No point in having a position and then not keeping it, or perhaps your moral compass is faulty. Or perhaps you are not here to discuss merely to insult and try to get a rise.

I will be honest - when I see your posts I cringe because you ruin the enjoyment of RMC for me and I am sure I am not alone. Now unless your posts are constructive instead of dismissive I will ignore them and move on.

[Tman]

[

quote="dvbuk55"]I have based it on weeks because that IS the fairest way. If you are paid an annual salary but only work three quarters of that compared to someone who works 48/52nds then obviously your remuneration is proportionately greater because despite what you say, the story doesn't gel. If you insist that hours count then why not put that forward as a solution and have them become hourly paid? As for the education system being better - you are obviously judging standards on figures provided by the Government and not on reality.

It's seems to be human nature to think "you get paid HOW much for just doing that?" in this life, and teachers are obviously not exempt from this peculiarly ignorant speculation. Apparently the "questioners" conveniently forget the GCSEs/O levels, A levels and university time required to make the grade though.
Shame that, because many hate to be told "you get paid HOW much for just pushing paper through letterboxes?" probably by the same ignorant people. Until you actually do the job in question, how can you judge?
Anyway, teachers (among many others) are salaried staff, posties are weekly paid, so there's no comparison from that aspect. In fact, there's no comparison from any aspect...

[TheLord]

back on the subject if we can...my daughter's English teacher actually changed unions cos she said she get 37.000 a year (not on your figures there!)and she says she gets paid amply for the job she does

I've posted the main scale. There is an Upper Scale beyond this which does go to £37K.

[TheLord]

I have based it on weeks because that IS the fairest way. If you are paid an annual salary but only work three quarters of that compared to someone who works 48/52nds then obviously your remuneration is proportionately greater because despite what you say, the story doesn't gel. If you insist that hours count then why not put that forward as a solution and have them become hourly paid? As for the education system being better - you are obviously judging standards on figures provided by the Government and not on reality.

In all this discussion I haven't seen any allusion whatsoever to "Teachers Aids" - surely they must take some of the overwhelming burden.

As an aside I have just driven by my local school on my way home about 55 minutes ago - guess what - yep the car park was empty! They must all be at home preparing lessons they've prepared every single day for how many years and marking all that homework.

Nice to see you've completely ignored my analogy. So are you saying that the amount of hours you work is irrelevant? I'll give you another analogy which might help. A & B work 48 weeks a year both earning £200/wk, which one earns more than the other? They earn the same you might say. Now if I tell you A works 40 hours/wk and B works 20 hours/wk, which job would you rather have?

Teachers are contracted to be in the classroom 195 days or 1265 hours a year with 5 days allocated to training days, so in effect they are paid by the hour, so it is a fair to compare hours. According to the NUT a primary school teacher works 50.9 hours per week, so my wife is above average, but even at 50.9 hours a week. They still earn the holidays.

Do you think they deserve pay-cuts for next 3 years? I'm guessing there are sour-grapes here because you started the poll hoping everyone would agree with you.

[TheLord]

In all this discussion I haven't seen any allusion whatsoever to "Teachers Aids" - surely they must take some of the overwhelming burden.

Are you talking about Classroom Assistants? They are just that, they assist in the classroom. They generally work class hours, but are underpaid and under appreciated. They get the same holidays though. Teachers still do all the planning as well as manage support staff. Those days of teachers sitting in front of a class marking books while the kids are working have long gone. It's a bit more sophisticated now.

As an aside I have just driven by my local school on my way home about 55 minutes ago - guess what - yep the car park was empty! They must all be at home preparing lessons they've prepared every single day for how many years and marking all that homework.

I should hope so at 17:50.

[TheLord]

Incidentally my sons school held parents evening just once a year in Mid January when it was dark, dismal and filthy weather. Not that it was a bad school, he had 10 GCSEs and 4 A Levels, College and University.

I'm guessing he was home taught... you know, with the education system being so bad.

[dvbuk55]

They don't work for the holidays and they don't work anything like the hours you're quoting. If people agree with me they agree if they don't agree they don't. I would really like to shadow a teacher for a week and see exactly how much they do or more to the point how little they do.

As for a pay cut for the next 3 years - so what? Throughout this discussion I have only quoted the starting salary so the hourly rate would be at the minimum - IF - they were paid by the hour. If they are overpaid in the first place it is probably meet justice. Apparently supply teachers are paid even more per diem.

We have taken an overall pay cut in 2007 and won't get another pay rise until 2009, our pension has been curtailed, the final pension scheme has been stopped and we have had a further five years added to our working life. So put in perspective the teachers moan is small beer.

How about teachers pension and retiring age. Discuss?

PAY SCALE FOR SOLDIERS ADULTS LEVEL AMOUNT P/W AMOUNT P/A

New Entrants 225.82 11,774.90

Private 1 274.68 14,283.36

Private 3 346.52 17,999.98

Private 4 372.19 19,353.88

Lance Corporal 5 411.53 21,399.56

Corporal 1 471.66 24,526.32

Sergeant 1 559.93 29,116.36

Colour Sergeant 6 644.07 33,491.64

Warrant Officer Class 2 5 693.14 36,043.28

Warrant Officer Class 1 1 719.32 37,404.64

In view of the recent troubles in Afghanistan and Iraq perhaps this adds yet another perspective to the pay scale you quoted.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

£24,000 PA for a Cpl - I should have never left. I was a Cpl got made redundant when I was in Bosnia and my PA was about £15,000

[dvbuk55]

£24,000 PA for a Cpl - I should have never left. I was a Cpl got made redundant when I was in Bosnia and my PA was about £15,000

Well on today's scale I would have been paid more than that BUT like all things it is relative - because I served prior to and left before 75 I am not entitled to a pension having served just 11 years - then you had to serve 22 years for a pension, after 12 you got a small lump sum - but once married my wife became worried whenever I was away - now of course she can't wait for me to get out of the house and if I am 20 minutes late I find her scouring the bureau for the insurance policies.

[TheLord]

They don't work for the holidays and they don't work anything like the hours you're quoting. If people agree with me they agree if they don't agree they don't. I would really like to shadow a teacher for a week and see exactly how much they do or more to the point how little they do.

As for a pay cut for the next 3 years - so what? Throughout this discussion I have only quoted the starting salary so the hourly rate would be at the minimum - IF - they were paid by the hour. If they are overpaid in the first place it is probably meet justice. Apparently supply teachers are paid even more per diem.

We have taken an overall pay cut in 2007 and won't get another pay rise until 2009, our pension has been curtailed, the final pension scheme has been stopped and we have had a further five years added to our working life. So put in perspective the teachers moan is small beer.

How about teachers pension and retiring age. Discuss?

PAY SCALE FOR SOLDIERS ADULTS LEVEL AMOUNT P/W AMOUNT P/A

New Entrants 225.82 11,774.90

Private 1 274.68 14,283.36

Private 3 346.52 17,999.98

Private 4 372.19 19,353.88

Lance Corporal 5 411.53 21,399.56

Corporal 1 471.66 24,526.32

Sergeant 1 559.93 29,116.36

Colour Sergeant 6 644.07 33,491.64

Warrant Officer Class 2 5 693.14 36,043.28

Warrant Officer Class 1 1 719.32 37,404.64

In view of the recent troubles in Afghanistan and Iraq perhaps this adds yet another perspective to the pay scale you quoted.

You keep calling me a liar when it comes to teachers' hours, where is your evidence to the contrary? You seem to be a very mistrusting an arrogant man, with little knowledge outside your own little world, I don't think there would be anything to convince you otherwise.

You think that teachers are overpaid, I'm guessing you think everyone wjo earns more than you is overpaid. It's all about supply and demand, if everyone wanted (and was able) to be teacher then their salaries would be less. As there are various shortages in people wanting to be teachers they have to offer more money. Strange really because, according to you, they are overpaid and underworked. I don't know why everyone doesn't want to be teacher with those conditions.

With regards to pensions, they get a good pension with very similar terms to ours. Much like ours, the retirement age has risen to 65 but from 2007, and they've moved to a career average salary as well. There was a time when they could retire at 50 and get a good pension but those days have long gone, so I'm not sure what your point is there.

With regards to the armed forces, I'm sure they do a very good job and I don't begrudge them the money. However, if I were to adopt the same attitude as you, with a blinkered ignorant POV I could quite easily say they are overpaid, never have to war, sit on their arses all day awaiting call that never comes and then moan when they do actually have to go to war. Of course I don't really believe that, but I'm sure you can appreciate my civvie POV (much like your POV towards teachers.

I'm guessing you have a chip on your shoulder about something, maybe you feel you never acheived your full potential and are jealous to see other people earning more money than you. Instead of trying knock people down why don't you try and focus your energy on improving your own situation.

You can at least take solace in the fact that you have taught me something:

You can't reason with the unreasonable.

Maybe you should have been a teacher!

Thank you and goodnight.