Indyref 2 (2)

[TDYER63]

42 minutes ago, ThistleWhistle said:

My plan is to become a teacher at the twilight of my career once the underwear modelling work dries up.  Wouldn't fancy secondary but primary wouldn't fuss me - my daughter has never had a class bigger than 26 and I volunteered teaching in my 20's with the plan to revisit when it could become a vocation rather than a job.  

Surely there is a massive question to be asked if teachers are doing c.500 hours on top of 300 hours prep/ development time especially in primary.  It can't, or shouldn't, take an hour to prepare for an hour teaching at that level surely especially the amount of Youtube videos and self-reading mine is doing.  

They can't be tagged in with nurses either for me - my niece is an ICU nurse at ARI on £23k doing 12 hour shifts including night shift.  In four - five years she gets up-towards £35k depending on banding so it's a bloody long road to get anywhere near the £42k and I'd rather be a secondary school teacher any day than deal with death, work shifts, miss Christmas or New Year and have 5-6 weeks off for the privilege.   

As I see it nurses aren't going to strike and genuinely seem deeply troubled at the very prospect which undermines their own bargaining position.  The teaching union, and it's members by extension, seem to have little issue at the prospect despite it being around prelims and following the disruption of Covid.   

Personally I think too many are falling into it straight out of education without any real world experience and it shows in this because they genuinely seem blind of the wider scheme of things.   Complaining of 'only' a 20% pay rise over the last 5 years and their struggles on £42k is tone deaf and a piece of piss for the media to paint them as the bad guys - it does a disservice to others striking as it allows them to try and tar them all with the same brush.     

😂 with an ageing population that is increasing you could very well have an extended underwear career in the free mags that also sell giant slippers.  

My daughter is an English teacher. She can work till 6 pm weekdays before going home , between marking and preparation,  and usually a couple of hours at weekends too . More than this when they have parents nights, inspections etc. I think that is fairly normal though i maybe wrong. 

I completely agree on nurses and that they , in particular, are vastly underpaid . Dont think it should be one or the other though,  both do important jobs and should be recognised for it. IMO to be a nurse you need to be a certain type of person and they are being taken advantage of because the caring qualities they have will not allow them to strike.  That is wrong . 

I think a lot of younger people these days expect high salaries with no real world experience , its a consequence of the greed culture we live in . 
 

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by TDYER63

[TDYER63]

7 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

By "him" I mean wee Dougie not the Moroccan goalie. Just in case there is any confusion.

Dont worry I understood. I have Morocco in the works sweep , there are no Tories in my team 😁

[hampden_loon2878]

4 hours ago, aaid said:

He’s being touted for East Lothian, the seat that Kenny McAskill currently holds.   It’s hardly a full on assault, given that’s one of the few seats which Labour are predicted to pick up - even with the SNP polling towards 50% across the country.

A full on assault would be if he took on Mhairi Black in her - and his old - seat.

I have a feeling we will get some other dinosaurs coming out of the wood work, you can’t but notice they are reenergised and starting to look confident, they are give me the fear I am not going to lie 

[Ally Bongo]

5 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

Out of interest where has he been for 8 years since a wee lassie took his job ? I genuinely dont know. Has he been in politics? 

Oh dont worry - the wee rat nyaff is still on the gravy train on both sides of the Atlantic according to his wiki page

The BBC have rewarded him quite a bit as has quisling Edinburgh University

[phart]

It's a fallacy of relative privation though with regards to conditions of other workers. Race to bottom on wages shouldn't be a thing.

There's plenty of wealth it's just concentrated in the wrong areas.

Teachers are making their argument (or their representatives are anyway) with their wage compared to teachers in other countries , there isn't an equivalent private sector for teachers really. There is for nurses if we count agencies and they get paid a fortune more and in better conditions.

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by phart

[AlfieMoon]

15 hours ago, killiefaetheferry said:

https://www.eis.org.uk/latest-news/spinnotfooling
 

If anyone is actually interested, here is the current EIS position in relation to the current pay dispute. The most interesting for me is the fact that Scotland's education professionals are below (significantly below according to this report) the OECD average on pay at the top of the pay scale, where most teachers are. Also significant that the 7.5% deal recently agreed with LA workers is mentioned. There are some teachers saying 10% or strike action. My own opinion is that 7.5% would be accepted if EIS put it to a vote. 

I really don’t like how unions twist figures. LA workers got a headline statement of 5% rise.  Nobody on 41k (if we’re taking a top of scale teacher as example, got 7.5%)
 

EIS are talking averages and spin to fight their own propaganda war. As do governments. Fair enough - but I don’t like the way that it hoodwinks people away from the actual data and facts. 

[TDYER63]

10 hours ago, AlfieMoon said:

I really don’t like how unions twist figures. LA workers got a headline statement of 5% rise.  Nobody on 41k (if we’re taking a top of scale teacher as example, got 7.5%)
 

EIS are talking averages and spin to fight their own propaganda war. As do governments. Fair enough - but I don’t like the way that it hoodwinks people away from the actual data and facts. 

I agree that twisting things to suit your own agenda is wrong, but the sad truth is that official data out yesterday confirms the average pay for British public sector workers fell to a 19 year low in October.

I know that is all of Britain and not just Scottish teachers but public sector wages have dropped much more than private sector and decline in teachers salaries will be a part of that. You cant fight everyone’s battles unfortunately you just need to concentrate on your own. 

Quite a decent basic piece from the FT . It may be talking about the UK government but would have a direct impact on the Scottish budget and in turn our ability to pay more. Also highlights the difficulty in recruiting quality staff. 

The UK government’s policy on public sector pay is foolish

 

https://www.ft.com/content/ca81509b-e929-487f-8975-49d75dc4f78d

[ThistleWhistle]

15 hours ago, phart said:

It's a fallacy of relative privation though with regards to conditions of other workers. Race to bottom on wages shouldn't be a thing.

There's plenty of wealth it's just concentrated in the wrong areas.

Teachers are making their argument (or their representatives are anyway) with their wage compared to teachers in other countries , there isn't an equivalent private sector for teachers really. There is for nurses if we count agencies and they get paid a fortune more and in better conditions.

 

Which countries out of interest because again possibly they're not comparing apples and apples either?

From memory think Scottish teachers were the best paid in the UK on average behind London and possibly the South East but with the comparable cost of living could argue they're in a better position.  

I've googled a few countries that sprung to mind out of interest and US elementary teachers get a couple of grand more on average but their wage is quite a chunk below the national median.  Sweden was below the nation median too which surprised me, Denmark was pretty much in line with the Median and Germany were above the median but not as noticeably as ourselves.  

 

[PapofGlencoe]

3 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

I agree that twisting things to suit your own agenda is wrong, but the sad truth is that official data out yesterday confirms the average pay for British public sector workers fell to a 19 year low in October.

I know that is all of Britain and not just Scottish teachers but public sector wages have dropped much more than private sector and decline in teachers salaries will be a part of that. You cant fight everyone’s battles unfortunately you just need to concentrate on your own. 

Quite a decent basic piece from the FT . It may be talking about the UK government but would have a direct impact on the Scottish budget and in turn our ability to pay more. Also highlights the difficulty in recruiting quality staff. 

The UK government’s policy on public sector pay is foolish

 

https://www.ft.com/content/ca81509b-e929-487f-8975-49d75dc4f78d

which jobs is it you think are on between £42-£52k a year in the private sector exactly?  12-18k pounds premium more than the median salary, not the low salary (in Scotland)?  who else is it going to be but skilled, middle class workers just like teachers?  Who specifically is it they're better than, to put it another way?  

once they get up the food chain in a school, then fair enough but they're not Architects or Engineers..  they aren't.  And many engineers are on 42-55k by the way in contracted roles.  Who do you think are on these types of wages?  Unskilled staff?

Of course there are day rate contractors on significantly more but there is such a thing as a comfortable salary in our society which can be a good yardstick for pay.

sorry I don't have a sub so can't read the report.

FYI - Alfie, the top of the scale is not the 41k either.  The recent rejection was to ensure those on over 60k got a non capped increase.  these are the roles many will be seeking to get on the ladder of down the line. there's other pay scales they aim to get onto, namely Chartered.   It's not anything like £42k and that's it as is implied.  It's a good job with good perks and career prospects.  

Edited December 14, 2022 by PapofGlencoe

[hampden_loon2878]

Flynn definitely rattling the cage down there with energy policie, really like what I have seen of him so far 

[phart]

1 hour ago, ThistleWhistle said:

Which countries out of interest because again possibly they're not comparing apples and apples either?

From memory think Scottish teachers were the best paid in the UK on average behind London and possibly the South East but with the comparable cost of living could argue they're in a better position.  

I've googled a few countries that sprung to mind out of interest and US elementary teachers get a couple of grand more on average but their wage is quite a chunk below the national median.  Sweden was below the nation median too which surprised me, Denmark was pretty much in line with the Median and Germany were above the median but not as noticeably as ourselves.  

 

OECD that's what we've been discussing in the thread.

What is the argument teachers should earn the median? Is that why it is being used as benchmark? Or is it comparing the relative wage to each countries median.

"The most interesting for me is the fact that Scotland's education professionals are below (significantly below according to this report) the OECD average on pay at the top of the pay scale, where most teachers are."

Was the claim earlier.

 

Edited December 14, 2022 by phart

[ThistleWhistle]

1 hour ago, phart said:

OECD that's what we've been discussing in the thread.

What is the argument teachers should earn the median? Is that why it is being used as benchmark? Or is it comparing the relative wage to each countries median.

"The most interesting for me is the fact that Scotland's education professionals are below (significantly below according to this report) the OECD average on pay at the top of the pay scale, where most teachers are."

Was the claim earlier.

 

No mate not the argument at all but what it is useful for is understanding how each of those countries value their teachers in comparison to their own employment market (its a football forum so its only for a rough guide/ yapping bollocks).  If the argument is 'in x, y, z countries they're getting a so we want a because we only get b' it makes no sense because don't understand the value of a to x,y,z in comparison of b to ourselves. 

In the US the average looks like they get £5k more nationally for elementary but are paid c.25% below the median salary so if the argument was to be paid like the States then their salary gets cut rather than increased so it falls in line with their value in the US job economy. 

I think there is an irony in the EIS claiming the SG are spinning when their statement appears full of it too.  I'm taking from the above quote they mean education professionals are below the average of all professions across OECD countries which is comparing apples with trampolines really. 

Wouldn't mind a look of the actual report though but would be flabbergasted if the average professional teacher salary across a list of countries including Costa Rica, Chile, Greece, Estonia, Hungary, Columbia, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Poland, Turkey and the UK too I suppose nudging it downwards was more than Scotland.  Looking at the bands:  Chartered can get between £45-£60 depending on scale; lead teacher £45-60k; principal teacher £50-£70 and heads £70 to £100k plus it is no wonder some of the public aren't fully enthused.  Purely anecdotal but my Mrs lost out on a day wage £80 due to needing to look after wee lass on the day of the strike which to some would be an absolute disaster whereas a sticking point to negotiations is anyone over £60k having their raise capped at £3k is unacceptable - the EIS, and it's members by extension, need to read the room.  

[AlfieMoon]

2 hours ago, PapofGlencoe said:

which jobs is it you think are on between £42-£52k a year in the private sector exactly?  12-18k pounds premium more than the median salary, not the low salary (in Scotland)?  who else is it going to be but skilled, middle class workers just like teachers?  Who specifically is it they're better than, to put it another way?  

once they get up the food chain in a school, then fair enough but they're not Architects or Engineers..  they aren't.  And many engineers are on 42-55k by the way in contracted roles.  Who do you think are on these types of wages?  Unskilled staff?

Of course there are day rate contractors on significantly more but there is such a thing as a comfortable salary in our society which can be a good yardstick for pay.

sorry I don't have a sub so can't read the report.

FYI - Alfie, the top of the scale is not the 41k either.  The recent rejection was to ensure those on over 60k got a non capped increase.  these are the roles many will be seeking to get on the ladder of down the line. there's other pay scales they aim to get onto, namely Chartered.   It's not anything like £42k and that's it as is implied.  It's a good job with good perks and career prospects.  

Yeah I know that they’ve got progression opps to go up the scale above the £41k.  In terms of the cap over £60k - that’s exactly in line with the local government award if I’m not mistaken.  
 

EIS are twisting things by talking in terms of average % increase to make out they’re being hard done to compared to the LA award. They are absolutely not.  
 

They are well entitled to fight for the best pay deal for the membership but I just think twisting the facts in this manner does no favours. Let the membership judge the pay offer on its merit, balanced with the political and economic climate, but don’t twist facts to drive a false narrative (which is what they are borderline doing). 

Edited December 14, 2022 by AlfieMoon

[PapofGlencoe]

1 hour ago, phart said:

OECD that's what we've been discussing in the thread.

What is the argument teachers should earn the median? Is that why it is being used as benchmark? Or is it comparing the relative wage to each countries median.

"The most interesting for me is the fact that Scotland's education professionals are below (significantly below according to this report) the OECD average on pay at the top of the pay scale, where most teachers are."

Was the claim earlier.

 

I don't think anyone does believes they should be on the median, goodness definitely not me.  it's a benchmark of how comfortable they are in their own country which they appear to be oblivious to.  So it would be the latter comparing relative to each countries median. maybe i'm actually just too much of a martyr for a bit of equality haha  just doesn't' seem right to me with it not being private money especially the real higher grades that are also seeking 10%.  i don't think the strikes are as supported as they think among people that have a clue about their earnings. even if we think they do a good job in challenging circumstances.

Okay, well Scots are on the "top" level far, far quicker than the average OECD country and starting salary is far, far higher.  In comparison Scots are coining it in earlier in their career in comparison to the OECD average which EIS deliberately did not mention who can take a very long time to get to that "top".  it's spin.   The top is a misnomer as there are lots of opportunity for other high paying roles, I know this for a fact.  It's not like they're all on 43k which is on the brink of an increase of some kind.  anyway, OECD data doesn't show where they sit in their own particular country or take account of finances of the country.  imagine we started doing pay disputes based on oecd averages across the board? lunacy.  should we also take the average OECD inflation rate as well?  it's not a reliable way to proceed for real conditions in each country.  it's just spin from the union. 

[phart]

Everything is spin, like saying "far, far quicker" these are all rhetoric and not quantitative arguments.

The reality is there isn't an objective answer just a collection of people assembling their arguments to why their opinion is right.

The union voted for strike action for whatever reasons. The main one seeming to be folk want more more and are using their leverage to try and get it.

How you feel about that will differ from each person.

[ThistleWhistle]

Maybe it's unfair but politicians spinning stuff is bad enough however those representing educational professionals spinning something is far worse for me - they really shouldn't be misrepresenting data. 

Surely they should at least be able to show their working 😂  

Edited December 14, 2022 by ThistleWhistle

[TDYER63]

3 hours ago, PapofGlencoe said:

which jobs is it you think are on between £42-£52k a year in the private sector exactly?  12-18k pounds premium more than the median salary, not the low salary (in Scotland)?  who else is it going to be but skilled, middle class workers just like teachers?  Who specifically is it they're better than, to put it another way?  

once they get up the food chain in a school, then fair enough but they're not Architects or Engineers..  they aren't.  And many engineers are on 42-55k by the way in contracted roles.  Who do you think are on these types of wages?  Unskilled staff?

Of course there are day rate contractors on significantly more but there is such a thing as a comfortable salary in our society which can be a good yardstick for pay.

sorry I don't have a sub so can't read the report.

FYI - Alfie, the top of the scale is not the 41k either.  The recent rejection was to ensure those on over 60k got a non capped increase.  these are the roles many will be seeking to get on the ladder of down the line. there's other pay scales they aim to get onto, namely Chartered.   It's not anything like £42k and that's it as is implied.  It's a good job with good perks and career prospects.  

I dont think teachers are necessarily better than other skilled workers but a fair number of management  jobs in the private sector in Scotland will be in the wage bracket you mentioned . I personally would rank teaching alongside a private sector management job.  My daughters partner sells IT products and he earns almost the same as her. The problem is the average wage is getting dragged down by very low paid workers, which is a real problem but I do not want to get into that too. 
 

This is the FT piece. 
 

The UK government’s policy on public sector pay is foolish

 

Letting inflation reduce real wages while expecting services to be maintained is dishonest

 

 

Martin Wolf DECEMBER 11 2022

 

 

The UK government is confronting a “winter of discontent” in public services. In response, it insists that it cannot afford higher pay and seeks to limit the right of public servants to strike. This may work politically. But it does not make sense economically. Public sector pay should be set at levels needed to attract and motivate the required staff. An upsurge in inflation does not change that logic.

 

Since the Conservatives won power in May 2010, overall real average pay (including bonuses) had risen by 5.5 per cent in the private sector by September 2022, but fallen by 5.9 per cent in the public sector. Startlingly, between January 2021 and September 2022, average real pay in the private sector fell by 1.5 per cent, but in the public sector pay fell by 7.7 per cent. In fact, all the decline in real public sector pay since 2010 has occurred in the past two years.

 

Such a large cut in real public sector pay could not have occurred without high inflation. But would one have wanted to reduce real pay in the absence of a rise in the price level? The answer is: yes. The UK has suffered a big deterioration in its “terms of trade”. Thus, the prices of its imports have risen sharply against those of its exports. The UK is poorer than it would have been if the rises in energy prices, above all, had not happened. Some of this adjustment in real incomes should fall on wages. Thus, some fall in real earnings is neither surprising nor inappropriate. Inflation has merely made it possible to implement.

 

 

Yet even if some fall in real earnings in the economy makes sense, why should the public sector’s fall be far greater than that in the private sector?

 

One might argue that control over public sector wages is an effective way to prevent a wage-price spiral, that government cannot afford to pay public sector workers any more, or that inflation is an opportunity to reduce excessive levels of public sector pay, especially when one takes perks, notably generous pensions, into account.

 

None of these arguments has merit.

 

On the first, Ben Zaranko of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, notes that “it is difficult to see how an increase in public sector wages could directly contribute to a wage-price spiral”, given the lack of prices in the public sector. Nor, he notes, can one argue that public sector pay is leading inflation, since it is falling far behind. Above all, policy on pay will not lower inflation. This demands macroeconomic measures.

 

 

On the second, the decision by government not to raise pay in line with wages in the private sector is not because it cannot afford to do so. Taxes could be raised if the will were there. It is in effect a political decision to make public sector employees pay for the government’s unfunded promises.

 

On the last argument, as the IFS noted in its October 2022 Green Budget, average pay in the public sector is higher than in the private sector, but this advantage disappears when one takes worker characteristics — age, experience, qualifications and so forth — into account. Public sector workers are then paid slightly less than private sector ones. In fact, the ratio is now more unfavourable to public sector workers than at any point in the past 30 years. True, if one considers employer pension contributions as well, public sector employees were paid 6 per cent more than private sector ones on average in 2021. But this slight advantage is sure to erode further in 2022.

 

 

Above all, the test of whether pay is appropriate is whether it maintains services at the levels government has promised. It is clear that there are substantial shortfalls in key staff, as well as widespread concerns about their quality. Thus, data from NHS England “show a vacancy rate of 11.9 per cent as at September 30 2022 within the Registered Nursing staff group (47,496 vacancies). This is an increase from the same period in the previous year, when the vacancy rate was 10.5 per cent (39,931 vacancies).” Again, data show dramatic shortfalls in recruitment of teachers in such subjects as physics or design & technology.

 

As Chris Cook argues, the government should ask whether public sector pay is at a level that will sustain delivery of needed services. The country’s social fabric is fraying. In particular, ill health is damaging labour supply. If the government is not prepared to raise the required taxes, it should be honest about that. Letting inflation reduce real pay, while expecting services to be maintained, let alone improve, is plainly dishonest.

 

The government should keep pay in line with the private sector’s, especially where it has significant recruitment and retention problems. If this means it has to reopen spending plans that no longer make sense in today’s debased pounds, so be it. What is happening now may be penny-wise, but it is pound-foolish.

[PapofGlencoe]

28 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

I dont think teachers are necessarily better than other skilled workers but a fair number of management  jobs in the private sector in Scotland will be in the wage bracket you mentioned . I personally would rank teaching alongside a private sector management job.  My daughters partner sells IT products and he earns almost the same as her. The problem is the average wage is getting dragged down by very low paid workers, which is a real problem but I do not want to get into that too. 
 

This is the FT piece. 
 

The UK government’s policy on public sector pay is foolish

 

Letting inflation reduce real wages while expecting services to be maintained is dishonest

 

 

Martin Wolf DECEMBER 11 2022

 

 

The UK government is confronting a “winter of discontent” in public services. In response, it insists that it cannot afford higher pay and seeks to limit the right of public servants to strike. This may work politically. But it does not make sense economically. Public sector pay should be set at levels needed to attract and motivate the required staff. An upsurge in inflation does not change that logic.

 

Since the Conservatives won power in May 2010, overall real average pay (including bonuses) had risen by 5.5 per cent in the private sector by September 2022, but fallen by 5.9 per cent in the public sector. Startlingly, between January 2021 and September 2022, average real pay in the private sector fell by 1.5 per cent, but in the public sector pay fell by 7.7 per cent. In fact, all the decline in real public sector pay since 2010 has occurred in the past two years.

 

Such a large cut in real public sector pay could not have occurred without high inflation. But would one have wanted to reduce real pay in the absence of a rise in the price level? The answer is: yes. The UK has suffered a big deterioration in its “terms of trade”. Thus, the prices of its imports have risen sharply against those of its exports. The UK is poorer than it would have been if the rises in energy prices, above all, had not happened. Some of this adjustment in real incomes should fall on wages. Thus, some fall in real earnings is neither surprising nor inappropriate. Inflation has merely made it possible to implement.

 

 

Yet even if some fall in real earnings in the economy makes sense, why should the public sector’s fall be far greater than that in the private sector?

 

One might argue that control over public sector wages is an effective way to prevent a wage-price spiral, that government cannot afford to pay public sector workers any more, or that inflation is an opportunity to reduce excessive levels of public sector pay, especially when one takes perks, notably generous pensions, into account.

 

None of these arguments has merit.

 

On the first, Ben Zaranko of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, notes that “it is difficult to see how an increase in public sector wages could directly contribute to a wage-price spiral”, given the lack of prices in the public sector. Nor, he notes, can one argue that public sector pay is leading inflation, since it is falling far behind. Above all, policy on pay will not lower inflation. This demands macroeconomic measures.

 

 

On the second, the decision by government not to raise pay in line with wages in the private sector is not because it cannot afford to do so. Taxes could be raised if the will were there. It is in effect a political decision to make public sector employees pay for the government’s unfunded promises.

 

On the last argument, as the IFS noted in its October 2022 Green Budget, average pay in the public sector is higher than in the private sector, but this advantage disappears when one takes worker characteristics — age, experience, qualifications and so forth — into account. Public sector workers are then paid slightly less than private sector ones. In fact, the ratio is now more unfavourable to public sector workers than at any point in the past 30 years. True, if one considers employer pension contributions as well, public sector employees were paid 6 per cent more than private sector ones on average in 2021. But this slight advantage is sure to erode further in 2022.

 

 

Above all, the test of whether pay is appropriate is whether it maintains services at the levels government has promised. It is clear that there are substantial shortfalls in key staff, as well as widespread concerns about their quality. Thus, data from NHS England “show a vacancy rate of 11.9 per cent as at September 30 2022 within the Registered Nursing staff group (47,496 vacancies). This is an increase from the same period in the previous year, when the vacancy rate was 10.5 per cent (39,931 vacancies).” Again, data show dramatic shortfalls in recruitment of teachers in such subjects as physics or design & technology.

 

As Chris Cook argues, the government should ask whether public sector pay is at a level that will sustain delivery of needed services. The country’s social fabric is fraying. In particular, ill health is damaging labour supply. If the government is not prepared to raise the required taxes, it should be honest about that. Letting inflation reduce real pay, while expecting services to be maintained, let alone improve, is plainly dishonest.

 

The government should keep pay in line with the private sector’s, especially where it has significant recruitment and retention problems. If this means it has to reopen spending plans that no longer make sense in today’s debased pounds, so be it. What is happening now may be penny-wise, but it is pound-foolish.

On the last argument, as the IFS noted in its October 2022 Green Budget, average pay in the public sector is higher than in the private sector, but this advantage disappears when one takes worker characteristics — age, experience, qualifications and so forth — into account. Public sector workers are then paid slightly less than private sector ones. In fact, the ratio is now more unfavourable to public sector workers than at any point in the past 30 years. True, if one considers employer pension contributions as well, public sector employees were paid 6 per cent more than private sector ones on average in 2021. But this slight advantage is sure to erode further in 2022.

 

Quite a high level which i don't pretend to have expertise on.  although it is a little bizarre to say it should keep pace with private whilst claiming it's already higher.  why?  Once the whole story is put together public sector is paid more than private.  which is not how things are often put. add in job security aspect too.  i think this helps to show why some public sector people think they're underpaid, they genuinely believe there are loads of private sector people on more when it's not really the case.  I'm not into this pitting them against each other anyway.  it's this dispute i don't agree with, not others.  goodness, i support just about all others. in both sectors.

I don't know about selling IT products.  If they're getting a decent salary from it then it must be regarded as a decent job, i'd have thought.  And their managers are on a par with PTs etc.  Might be unfair, don't know. 

Plenty skilled jobs with pressure in the salary range teachers are currently in.  I know renewable energy engineers in a similar bracket that can admittedly contract out at higher but generally prefer job security.  

58 minutes ago, phart said:

Everything is spin, like saying "far, far quicker" these are all rhetoric and not quantitative arguments.

The reality is there isn't an objective answer just a collection of people assembling their arguments to why their opinion is right.

The union voted for strike action for whatever reasons. The main one seeming to be folk want more more and are using their leverage to try and get it.

How you feel about that will differ from each person.

i used the rhetoric the EIS used for my own amusement.  feel free to pick the numbers out.  they're indisputable but everyone can put their spin on.  i think if they showed their working support would bomb although it's ebbing.

Aye people create their own realities though out of their arguments.  i suppose nobody thinks their wrong.  That's deep even for me!

Edited December 14, 2022 by PapofGlencoe

[AlfieMoon]

46 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

I dont think teachers are necessarily better than other skilled workers but a fair number of management  jobs in the private sector in Scotland will be in the wage bracket you mentioned . I personally would rank teaching alongside a private sector management job.  My daughters partner sells IT products and he earns almost the same as her. The problem is the average wage is getting dragged down by very low paid workers, which is a real problem but I do not want to get into that too. 
 
 

 

19 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

Quite a high level which i don't pretend to have expertise on.  although it is a little bizarre to say it should keep pace with private whilst claiming it's already higher.  why?  Once the whole story is put together public sector is paid more than private.  which is not how things are often put. add in job security aspect too.  i think this helps to show why some public sector people think they're underpaid, they genuinely believe there are loads of private sector people on more when it's not really the case.  I'm not into this pitting them against each other anyway.  it's this dispute i don't agree with, not others.  goodness, i support just about all others. in both sectors.

I don't know about selling IT products.  If they're getting a decent salary from it then it must be regarded as a decent job, i'd have thought.  And their managers are on a par with PTs etc.  Might be unfair, don't know. 

Plenty skilled jobs with pressure in the salary range teachers are currently in.  I know renewable energy engineers in a similar bracket that can admittedly contract out at higher but generally prefer job security.  

i used the rhetoric the EIS used for my own amusement.  feel free to pick the numbers out.  they're indisputable but everyone can put their spin on.  i think if they showed their working support would bomb although it's ebbing.

Aye people create their own realities though out of their arguments.  i suppose nobody thinks they’re wrong.  That's deep even for me!

Funnily enough, I was going to mention IT sales in response to the 42-52k bracket that you mentioned Pap.  I got sidetracked making another point.  
 

I completely agree with Tyder. Having worked in IT sales companies for a number of years - it’s not particularly difficult to pick up 40-50k+ for what I would suggest is not a particularly skilled job. To be honest, from my experience you maybe have 1/20 that I would say are actual skilled salespeople.  There’s a lot of glorified order processing which is demanding nothing more than people to be semi-competent. I’ve often wondered how that compares to other sales industries.  If they are similar to what I’ve seen in IT, then that for me is an issue of where the disparity builds.  
 

There’s no way that people at that level of job should be making more than nurses (in my opinion), but I suppose that’s what happens when you generate a sales/services based economy.   The flip side is of course - less job security, lower base pay and no guaranteed bonus. 

[phart]

26 minutes ago, PapofGlencoe said:

i used the rhetoric the EIS used for my own amusement.  feel free to pick the numbers out.  they're indisputable but everyone can put their spin on.  i think if they showed their working support would bomb although it's ebbing.

Aye people create their own realities though out of their arguments.  i suppose nobody thinks their wrong.  That's deep even for me!

The only number that really matter is the numbers in the vote for industrial action as that's the result that then sets everything else into motion.

Latest poll i saw had 60 in favour 30 against as a percentage of those polled. Whether that is good or bad , depends i guess.

Now I am in no way affected by the strikes in this sector so it's easy for me to not really feel strongly about them. However I am being pretty strongly affected by the RMT strikes and I support them so I would like to think that would carry over for teachers.

I'm generally in favour of strike action if that is what the workers want. That's pretty much it.

I can't find certain numbers folk keep talking about i've said that a couple of times now in this thread. Now the problem is if we suddenly got much more data could i be arsed then pouring over it all to understand it.

[phart]

You could go on about wage suppression as well for the last few decades. The problem is making that argument properly means having to go through and cite all the various economists and policies etc. I'm just too busy and also nowhere near as sure of my views as I used to be. 10 years ago I would have happily argued it for a month sure I was right.

So we've got to a situation where there is a generally a lot more malcontent people working and it's been a long slow process of the movement of wealth into less hands etc.

So now it's coming to a head and the result is going to inconvenience a lot of people. I would then say that the symptoms are being confused for the disease in this case. The striking workers being the symptoms and the long term political stripping of wealth being the disease.

[AlfieMoon]

3 minutes ago, phart said:

You could go on about wage suppression as well for the last few decades. The problem is making that argument properly means having to go through and cite all the various economists and policies etc. I'm just too busy and also nowhere near as sure of my views as I used to be. 10 years ago I would have happily argued it for a month sure I was right.

So we've got to a situation where there is a generally a lot more malcontent people working and it's been a long slow process of the movement of wealth into less hands etc.

So now it's coming to a head and the result is going to inconvenience a lot of people. I would then say that the symptoms are being confused for the disease in this case. The striking workers being the symptoms and the long term political stripping of wealth being the disease.

I think this is a very fair summary. The individual strikes and annual pay negotiations are masking the big picture issue - that people are getting poorer and the UK is falling behind. 

[PapofGlencoe]

18 minutes ago, AlfieMoon said:

 

Funnily enough, I was going to mention IT sales in response to the 42-52k bracket that you mentioned Pap.  I got sidetracked making another point.  
 

I completely agree with Tyder. Having worked in IT sales companies for a number of years - it’s not particularly difficult to pick up 40-50k+ for what I would suggest is not a particularly skilled job. To be honest, from my experience you maybe have 1/20 that I would say are actual skilled salespeople.  There’s a lot of glorified order processing which is demanding nothing more than people to be semi-competent. I’ve often wondered how that compares to other sales industries.  If they are similar to what I’ve seen in IT, then that for me is an issue of where the disparity builds.  
 

There’s no way that people at that level of job should be making more than nurses (in my opinion), but I suppose that’s what happens when you generate a sales/services based economy.   The flip side is of course - less job security, lower base pay and no guaranteed bonus. 

could be.  I don't really know about IT sales.  I still don't understand what the cloud is although i've been told multiple times!  Would seem to me you'd need a fair amount of knowledge and sales pressure; they wouldn't give you a good salary like that for nothing but maybe not.  why pay them a good salary but maybe they're just good at making it look more difficult than it is!  Really no idea, to be honest!  I'll take your word for it.  it's only one industry though.  Plenty people in a skilled job or middle management on the teachers bracket we're talking about, though.  Some University PHD Lecturers are on less and are very skilled.  And other Engineers on similar.  It prob seems like i'm set against salary increases, I'm really not.  I could even agree with the teacher one to some extent at the bottom end.  It's the others I know that grind my gears that also want the uncapped increase.  and the pretense across the board they're hard done by when they really are not in a scottish context (the high earners in particular, I mean).    

I agree there's a downward pressure on wages and people trying to fight it are only doing what they can.  

The Nurses should be on more.  Especially at the starting levels, they can't keep the staff.      

as phart says it's about opinions.  Probably posted more in last few days than ever on here as this has definitely been a bee in my bonnet.  good to read other  people's opinions, I daren't say it out load in my house!!  they think i've gone Tory 😅

[Auchinyell Sox Change]

42 minutes ago, AlfieMoon said:

I think this is a very fair summary. The individual strikes and annual pay negotiations are masking the big picture issue - that people are getting poorer and the UK is falling behind. 

I think the definition of poor / poorer etc has changed over the decades ; am sure a lot of people on here grew up on council estates ; no car , no overseas holidays , rental tv if your lucky , although as a whole community- your pals were in the same boat it was normalized- the mums were unlikely to be keeping up with the kardashians either - tupperware / betterware or avon more likely 

eating out / skip the dishes would of been occasional trip to chipper

[TDYER63]

2 hours ago, PapofGlencoe said:

On the last argument, as the IFS noted in its October 2022 Green Budget, average pay in the public sector is higher than in the private sector, but this advantage disappears when one takes worker characteristics — age, experience, qualifications and so forth — into account. Public sector workers are then paid slightly less than private sector ones. In fact, the ratio is now more unfavourable to public sector workers than at any point in the past 30 years. True, if one considers employer pension contributions as well, public sector employees were paid 6 per cent more than private sector ones on average in 2021. But this slight advantage is sure to erode further in 2022.

 

Quite a high level which i don't pretend to have expertise on.  although it is a little bizarre to say it should keep pace with private whilst claiming it's already higher.  why?  Once the whole story is put together public sector is paid more than private.  which is not how things are often put. add in job security aspect too.  i think this helps to show why some public sector people think they're underpaid, they genuinely believe there are loads of private sector people on more when it's not really the case.  I'm not into this pitting them against each other anyway.  it's this dispute i don't agree with, not others.  goodness, i support just about all others. in both sectors.

I don't know about selling IT products.  If they're getting a decent salary from it then it must be regarded as a decent job, i'd have thought.  And their managers are on a par with PTs etc.  Might be unfair, don't know. 

Plenty skilled jobs with pressure in the salary range teachers are currently in.  I know renewable energy engineers in a similar bracket that can admittedly contract out at higher but generally prefer job security.  

i used the rhetoric the EIS used for my own amusement.  feel free to pick the numbers out.  they're indisputable but everyone can put their spin on.  i think if they showed their working support would bomb although it's ebbing.

Aye people create their own realities though out of their arguments.  i suppose nobody thinks their wrong.  That's deep even for me!

IT sales pays well as the world is now at the mercy of technology. Even more in demand are IT technicians. Anyone who got into IT years ago could now be in a very lucrative and wealthy position. IT is like anything else, it is controlled by supply and demand. It will probably also explain the shortage of physics and design and technology teachers. Who would be interested in a teacher’s salary when you could get so much more in the private sector. 

I think the real problem is what someone mentioned before. Until now , teachers, nurses,  etc were begrudgingly content with their lot. Interest rates were very low and energy , food etc were at affordable prices and folk were just bobbing along. However its now all kicked off and folk are getting whipped into a frenzy. 

I am not making this our first domestic Pap so lets just get back to abusing those bloody bankers 😁