The Starmer Years - Can The New Broom Sweep Clean?

[Sir Ralph]

46 minutes ago, OldNick said:

is it 6 or 8 weeks in the summer ? then 6 weeks before another week or 2. There is no real need for this as my understanding is that the long vacations were for historic reasons eg when the kids helped with the harvest. Please dont come back saying about stress etc as most modern jobs have untold stress.  

My experience of stress in parts of the public sector and the private sector have different threshold levels (not for all I hasten to add, but many). This from someone who has worked in both. The pay does reflect this in parts of the private sector to add balance. I have known a few people in the public sector that are underpaid for their output and I would pay them more if I was in charge, but there are some sectors where the levels of output wouldnt be acceptable in most private sector environments. In my own experience, the former is less common than the latter.

Edited 12 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[AlexLaw76]

39 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

No one in this country could live on the state pension alone unless they have won the lottery.

My wife has a Civil Service pension. It is fairly reasonable (at the moment) but she spent 33 years earning crap pay and this was her reason for staying in the job.

I watched a programme called Location Location Location last night. One couple were looking for a modest semi priced at around £1m. The other couple were looking at modest 2 bedroomed flat price not much under half a million quid. Cost of living prices have excelerated way about earnings and benefits over the last 10 years or so. You used to be able to buy 3 pints and still get change from a ten bob note. Now a pint can cost you £7. A portion of fish’n’chips used to be a very cheap meal, now you are lucky to get change out of a £20 note. 

Cutting wages and benefits will only cripple the country even more than it is at the moment.

Maybe the Govt should drop all green taxes to reduce costs to the consumer, yes?

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, OldNick said:

is it 6 or 8 weeks in the summer ? then 6 weeks before another week or 2. There is no real need for this as my understanding is that the long vacations were for historic reasons eg when the kids helped with the harvest. Please dont come back saying about stress etc as most modern jobs have untold stress.  

Like I said total bollocks. My wife was a Primary teacher: she would do 2 hours at school after the pupils had left then another 2 or 3 at home in the evening, plus most of the day on Sunday marking and planning. Of the six weeks in the summer, probably 3 involved work at home, or even for the week before term started going into school.

This is an easily trotted out, and for those in the system easily debunked, lazy meme. You can do better.

 

[skintsaint]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

I have known a few people in the public sector that are underpaid for their output and I would pay them more if I was in charge, but there are some sectors where the levels of output wouldnt be acceptable in most private sector environments.

You pay peanuts, you get monkeys, the pay for CS work is very low compared to the private sector, so if you want better more productive workers, you need to pay more. My CS department spends so much on agency staff that can't fill positions, which in turn actually costs more to the department than employing someone on decent wages.

[iansums]

4 hours ago, whelk said:

Yeah all those teachers and nurses that are so easy to recruit, most buy coastal homes in Barbados with their windfalls when they retire

Your usual mocking response. I would actually like to see public sector pensions brought more in line with the private sector. I’m sure many would prefer to see a higher wage than the relatively large amount going into their pensions.

[Winnersaint]

2 hours ago, OldNick said:

Im sure, but I beieve many outside of being a teacher fret at them having untold weeks off and when they go back to work there always seems to be a teacher training day, normally on a monday for a long weekend. Training should be in the school holidays

This, like many things needs breaking down. Firstly the untold weeks off. Teachers can only work when children are in school, apart that is from the 'training days' which I'll come to in a bit. Obviously there are historical and societal reasons for the term/holiday times particularly the 6 weeks in the summer which have faded in importance. There's quite a lot of solid evidence of learning loss particularly around primary to secondary transition and arguments spacing out term/holiday time throughout the year have some value. A full-time teacher is contracted for 1265 hours annually over 195 days, including 5 training days. and receives the statutory holiday entitlement of 28 days paid annual leave which is factored into the salary calculations. As leave has to be taken during the school holidays teachers have a great deal of flexibility as to when they can take it, but outside of those 5.6 weeks that all full time workers are entitled to all other time off is not paid for. Payment is spread across twelve months rather than just term time for convenience. Put simply, teachers are paid during school holidays not for school holidays Looking at those training days which are something of a nuisance, I agree, if you put those in the school holidays where teachers are not working nor being paid for you'd have to pay them just to comply with the existing contact of employment. Extrapolating my salary to 2025 from 2015 when I retired, me attending training days would cost the school £1700+ whether during term time or in holiday time. Putting them elsewhere won't save any money. The other flaw is around when teachers go on holiday, particularly in the summer. It would be a logistical nightmare to ensure everyone could attend during holiday periods. Another thing to consider is that some schools, including ones I've worked in use twilight (after school) time to deliver training in lieu of the training days. Most secondary schools do two or three days at the end of the summer holidays and split the rest across the year during time.

[Sir Ralph]

4 hours ago, skintsaint said:

You pay peanuts, you get monkeys, the pay for CS work is very low compared to the private sector, so if you want better more productive workers, you need to pay more. My CS department spends so much on agency staff that can't fill positions, which in turn actually costs more to the department than employing someone on decent wages.

I agree for the good ones so I think you could pay good people more and make it easier to get rid of the shite ones. It’s notoriously difficult to sack bad people in the public sector. 

Edited 6 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Baird of the land]

Labour’s new deputy seems an absolute clown.

[Sir Ralph]

1 hour ago, Baird of the land said:

Labour’s new deputy seems an absolute clown.

It’s the only way you can get into this Government. It’s a minimum requirement.

[AlexLaw76]

6 hours ago, skintsaint said:

You pay peanuts, you get monkeys, the pay for CS work is very low compared to the private sector, so if you want better more productive workers, you need to pay more. My CS department spends so much on agency staff that can't fill positions, which in turn actually costs more to the department than employing someone on decent wages.

part of the gig in the CS is the decent pension and the insane job security. 

[Gloucester Saint]

5 hours ago, iansums said:

Your usual mocking response. I would actually like to see public sector pensions brought more in line with the private sector. I’m sure many would prefer to see a higher wage than the relatively large amount going into their pensions.

They were ages ago - final salary ended many years ago - and even average earnings watered down. Combine as @skintsaint says with lower wages and no bonuses and what is written in the Mail and Telegraph is about 15 years out of date.

I know this as family members working in the pensions profession.

[skintsaint]

5 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

They were ages ago - final salary ended many years ago - and even average earnings watered down. Combine as @skintsaint says with lower wages and no bonuses and what is written in the Mail and Telegraph is about 15 years out of date.

I know this as family members working in the pensions profession.

Explains is well and how it changed :

https://www.civilservant.org.uk/information-pensions.html

[egg]

47 minutes ago, Gloucester Saint said:

They were ages ago - final salary ended many years ago - and even average earnings watered down. Combine as @skintsaint says with lower wages and no bonuses and what is written in the Mail and Telegraph is about 15 years out of date.

I know this as family members working in the pensions profession.

I do some work in the public sector and have a pension. It'd cost a fortune to buy an equivalent scheme privately. The role doesn't pay brilliantly though, and the pension is the sweetener. If they dilute it I'm out, and that'll happen across the public sector. 

[iansums]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

I do some work in the public sector and have a pension. It'd cost a fortune to buy an equivalent scheme privately. The role doesn't pay brilliantly though, and the pension is the sweetener. If they dilute it I'm out, and that'll happen across the public sector. 

But wouldn’t you prefer a higher salary and less going into your pension? Especially when you are younger, have a mortgage, kids etc. Just read that teachers automatically pay from about 7% rising to 12% dependant on salary and the employer pays 28%.