The years of discontent, 2022/23

[mathematics]

Just now, scottsdad said:

They go up to the next spine (i.e. bottom of the next grade scale).

This is just a rumour I heard though. Apparently here we are moving people who have been top of their grade for more than 3 years up a spine point also.

That a nice gesture.

[RH33]

10 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

FWIW teachers work ridiculous hours, but they are far from poorly paid, and do have plenty time to earn extra money should that be a pressing need.

They'd be far better striking for better working hours and / or classroom support, though, IMO as LAs throwing more money at a short-term problem won't relieve the stress or excessive workload.

Regarding your second point, I have a friend who is a teacher in ASN school. She said she would rather have no rise and the support staff needed. Across their site they have 10 ASN posts but the pay is terrible and often temporary posts.

[vikingTON]

8 hours ago, carpetmonster said:

If we’re going into the forensics that teachers get paid for x amount of minutes and the minutes that they’re not teaching then they’re a bludging drain on society, then that doesn’t strike me as being overly motivational to what - should be - a fairly important job. 
 

But who am I to say? I’m not a world renowned historian striding across the Clyde Riviera like a colossus. 

It's not 'forensics' to calculate the minutes of labour and the value of that labour at all: that's called a 'contract'. And we know that teachers are more than happy to focus on this issue when it suits - because they've (quite rightly) raised contracted preparation time as an area to be improved in recent negotiation cycles. That process works both ways though. 

The reality is that a job that is not 10% more productive than it was this time last year is going to take public money away from much, much more important priorities, in order to pay the 'rising petrol bills' of people on far above the median full-time salary. That's not justifiable in the political economy that our senseless leaders have created overnight. 

Edited November 25, 2022 by vikingTON

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, hk blues said:

Everyone is paying the same premium nowadays for their necessities, and thus during these special times all should get the same uplift.  For sure, that's not going to happen nor how the world works but at least some acknowledgement that it would be the right thing to do would go some way.  

https://ifs.org.uk/news/inflation-hits-9-poorest-households-facing-even-higher-rates

That's actually not true. The premium is higher for those on lower incomes, because the most significant sources of inflation are in non-discretionary areas like food and energy. A homeowner/mortgage payer meanwhile has benefited from another form of inflation in the form of asset prices and so has greater wealth to adjust if their discretionary spending is no longer sustainable. It is not the job of the taxpayer to fund their Alpine ski break in perpetuity. 

This is why any cost of living pay deal should involve a cash rather than percentage increase, because that lifts up the rate for those who need it most without chucking £5k at someone who patently does not need that extra support. 

[19QOS19]

Have you been on a train post Covid ? Take away the students and I'd estimate we are at less than 50% of previous passengers. I have no idea how the service is still being run as it is with the drop off in passengers.

I'd hazard a guess very few in the lowest paid jobs are travelling to work by train. By nature these jobs are often unsociable hours meaning no trains running or if not the train will simply be too expensive at peak times.

Anyway might be moot with yesterday's Scotrail new offer looking like being accepted.

It looks like that's just the Guards and TEs deal. I haven't read anything yet about the signallers strikes being called off. I'd be surprised if a deal isn't made though.

[vikingTON]

10 hours ago, Am Featha *****h Nan Clach said:

My experience is that people who earn more than teachers support inflation matching wage rises as it's a graduate job with a significant degree of responsibility.

It tends to be those who earn less who get in a tizzy. There seems to be a real bitterness that other people are getting higher % wage rises. I fully support ALL council/govt employees getting meaningful increases.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, council employees aren't all getting meaningful interests. Some of them are in fact losing their jobs because councils that have a legal obligation to break even cannot do so with the resources at their disposal:

https://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/news/20899417.inverclyde-council-cut-200-jobs-balance-books/

A similar picture can be seen up and down the country - although nowhere quite to the same extent of having to brutally destroy community assets like public libraries or not even keep street lighting switched on.

So the reality is quite different to the fictional one that your bellyaching and snobbery is based on. Resources are scarce and so a 10% hike for people who patently do not need that leads directly to community harms and actual unemployment among other groups. 

Quote

It's divide and conquer.

M8, the EIS is a sectional union devoted to giving certain education staff a privileged deal separate from the plebs. When was the last time that the teaching unions joined any radical campaign for collective change?

Spare me the workers of the world bullshit then, because you're not getting a 10% hike at the second time of asking. 

Edited November 25, 2022 by vikingTON

[Michael W]

1 hour ago, hk blues said:

Everyone is paying the same premium nowadays for their necessities, and thus during these special times all should get the same uplift.  For sure, that's not going to happen nor how the world works but at least some acknowledgement that it would be the right thing to do would go some way.  

In cash terms, yes. 

Lower paid workers are however exposed to much greater harm as their basic costs (food, energy, rent/mortgage.) take up a proportionately higher percentage of their income. When the unions are talking about members struggling, it is almost always their lower earners that they mean. 

Assuming teachers (taking them as an example here) won't get 10%, anything less they settle on will have a greater impact on those on the lower salaries. I believe the SG offered 5% - it should be possible to give those more in need of the rise the 10% and come to an agreement that the more senior positions will get a bit less than that. Alternatively, is there scope to give everyone a fixed rise - say £3k or something? 

 

[hk blues]

15 minutes ago, virginton said:

https://ifs.org.uk/news/inflation-hits-9-poorest-households-facing-even-higher-rates

That's actually not true. The premium is higher for those on lower incomes, because the most significant sources of inflation are in non-discretionary areas like food and energy. A homeowner/mortgage payer meanwhile has benefited from another form of inflation in the form of asset prices and so has greater wealth to adjust if their discretionary spending is no longer sustainable. It is not the job of the taxpayer to fund their Alpine ski break in perpetuity. 

This is why any cost of living pay deal should involve a cash rather than percentage increase, because that lifts up the rate for those who need it most without chucking £5k at someone who patently does not need that extra support. 

 

4 minutes ago, Michael W said:

In cash terms, yes. 

Lower paid workers are however exposed to much greater harm as their basic costs (food, energy, rent/mortgage.) take up a proportionately higher percentage of their income. When the unions are talking about members struggling, it is almost always their lower earners that they mean. 

Assuming teachers (taking them as an example here) won't get 10%, anything less they settle on will have a greater impact on those on the lower salaries. I believe the SG offered 5% - it should be possible to give those more in need of the rise the 10% and come to an agreement that the more senior positions will get a bit less than that. Alternatively, is there scope to give everyone a fixed rise - say £3k or something? 

 

I was taking a broadbrush approach but I take the point well made.  

For sure, a fixed payment will go some way to reducing the "inequity" but will also create another issue in that it would erode salary differentials and provide ammunition for future pay grievances from those higher up the scale.  A half-way house of part %age increase and part fixed amount is a compromise but just that, a compromise.  

There is no "we're all in this together" mood. 

 

 

[Billy Jean King]

M8, the EIS is a sectional union devoted to giving certain education staff a privileged deal separate from the plebs. When was the last time that the teaching unions joined any radical campaign for collective change?
Spare me the workers of the world bullshit then, because you're not getting a 10% hike at the second time of asking. 

I'd be surprised if Inverclyde job losses were anything but voluntary as most (not sure if it's all) Scottish LAs are currently working under a "no compulsory redundancy" agreement.

[craigkillie]

I don't know the ins and outs of the teaching pay debate, nor do I have any particular interest in getting into it, but looking after the lowest paid staff as a priority should always be the goal of a union in my opinion. I work at a university, and our local branch of the UCU had all but agreed a pay deal for their staff (generally the highest paid at the university) before consulting with the other campus unions (GMB, Unison, Unite) and realising that the (generally lower paid) staff in those unions weren't getting anywhere near what we were. They therefore joined forces and presented a joint position to the university which eventually led to an agreement last month - ultimately the deal I ended up getting was exactly the same as what would have been agreed before (3%), but the other two unions got a far larger uplift. That, to me, is the whole point of trade unionism.

Edited November 25, 2022 by craigkillie

[vikingTON]

10 minutes ago, hk blues said:

 

I was taking a broadbrush approach but I take the point well made.  

For sure, a fixed payment will go some way to reducing the "inequity" but will also create another issue in that it would erode salary differentials and provide ammunition for future pay grievances from those higher up the scale.  A half-way house of part %age increase and part fixed amount is a compromise but just that, a compromise.  

There is no "we're all in this together" mood. 

If the response from any employee or union to a flat pay increase is 'but but what about my pay differential?' then they're clearly not that concerned about the cost of living 'crisis' after all. 

A cost of living increase does not give ammunition to those who fundamentally don't need it in the first place. 

[Bairnardo]

If the response from any employee or union to a flat pay increase is 'but but what about my pay differential?' then they're clearly not that concerned about the cost of living 'crisis' after all. 
A cost of living increase does not give ammunition to those who fundamentally don't need it in the first place. 

Companies probably put as much stock in pay differentials as employees of not more in my experience. Iv never seen the differential brought up by collectives when it comes to negotiating.

But companies generally are invested in maintaining higher pay for higher responsibility jobs because no fucker would do them otherwise. For the last ten years I have worked a job that seems to be set up the same way across the entire industry, in that it's the same job title as a lower responsibility one, but a higher pay grade.

Even then, the companies I have worked for have all shared the same problem in common.... People outright refusing the notional promotion to the higher responsibility job because the financial boost isn't worth the added hassle. So it's not generally down to the workers that there's a differential, and it's not there exclusively for their benefit. It surely has to be a big part of the market forces that get you the people you need.

Anyway, annual pay rises have always been about keeping wages up with cost of living. That hasn't changed now. There isn't suddenly some new "but you don't need it" argument that didn't exist before. Just seems to me like it's become more visible now because widespread disgruntlement has finally led to a wave of action.

[hk blues]

3 minutes ago, virginton said:

If the response from any employee or union to a flat pay increase is 'but but what about my pay differential?' then they're clearly not that concerned about the cost of living 'crisis' after all. 

A cost of living increase does not give ammunition to those who fundamentally don't need it in the first place. 

The issue isn't the response to a flat rise today but the potential for it to be used as a future negotiating tool.  I don't believe you are naive enough to believe no employees or their representatives would refuse to use that in future negotiations.  From the union perspective, there is no moral dilemma as restoring differentials would not be seen as undesirable.

However, the elephant in the room is that everything has to be paid for despite some on here seeming to think there is a bottomless pit of money. Robbing Peter to pay Paul springs to mind.

[hk blues]

5 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

 

 

Companies probably put as much stock in pay differentials as employees of not more in my experience. Iv never seen the differential brought up by collectives when it comes to negotiating.
 

 

I've seen it used but less so within and between  "union" jobs i.e. a union would choose a comparator outside of their collective bargaining unit.  

Also, the widespread awarding of flat rates is not all that common so perhaps that also explains why it hasn't been prevalent in negotiations.  

[Bairnardo]

I've seen it used but less so within and between  "union" jobs i.e. a union would choose a comparator outside of their collective bargaining unit.  
Also, the widespread awarding of flat rates is not all that common so perhaps that also explains why it hasn't been prevalent in negotiations.  

Well aye, but companies choose comparators from within the same industry to back up their assertions all the time also.

Iv never seen a flat rate argued for and iv been in collectivised workforces for almost all my working life. Never even seen it discussed tbh. I cant say I would have any aversion to it incidentally.

[EvilScotsman]

2 hours ago, scottsdad said:

Heard a rumour that the University of Sheffield have given their staff 6.5% or thereabouts. A 3% cost of living rise plus putting everyone up a spine point (thus still remaining as part of the UUK collective bargaining position). First to break ranks. Also giving all staff £1k extra.

They changed the spine points rather than putting everyone up one point, which is obviously exactly the same thing except it addresses @mathematicspoint below. I think that is the 3% increase rather than in addition to it though. The £1000 is being paid monthly over 10 months, so it works out as an extra £60 a month after tax/NI etc; better than a kick in the teeth but hardly a game changer. Given there's plenty of money for poorly procured new buildings and for them to host an event at the fucking Tory Conference every year it's the least they could do, really.

2 hours ago, mathematics said:

What happens to those at the top of their spines?

 

[Todd_is_God]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

Teachers are very well paid. Period.

Theres really no need to abuse statistics in the way that you are doing to make that point.

It's not abuse, though. If teachers cannot survive on their salary (calculated on the basis of being paid for working 10.5 months of the year) then they could do something about that by finding some paid employment during the other 1.5 months of the year in the same way anyone else who was effectively unemployed for 6 weeks of the year would.

[hk blues]

1 minute ago, Bairnardo said:

Well aye, but companies choose comparators from within the same industry to back up their assertions all the time also.

Iv never seen a flat rate argued for and iv been in collectivised workforces for almost all my working life. Never even seen it discussed tbh. I cant say I would have any aversion to it incidentally.

23 years as an HR Manager in the UK, negotiated with the TGWU and GPMU as well as a few spin-offs.  Definitely experienced it (differentials) when we had an ongoing initiative to uplift the wages of the 3 lowest paid factories and then had it used as a bargaining point with an associated union who represented a different type of worker in the same factories. I will be very fair to the union in the above case, the case was being argued much more strongly by the members than the full-time officials.  

By the way, this was not a case of flat rate increases, rather a different %age increases, but the point still stands.  It was customary for the same rate of increase to be awarded to both types of employees covered by the 2 collective bargaining agreements. 

 

[Lex]

6 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

It's not abuse, though. If teachers cannot survive on their salary (calculated on the basis of being paid for working 10.5 months of the year) then they could do something about that by finding some paid employment during the other 1.5 months of the year in the same way anyone else who was effectively unemployed for 6 weeks of the year would.

My mate who's a teacher does this. Spends the summer driving tourists around on coach tours. Surprised it's not more common. 

[hk blues]

6 minutes ago, Lex said:

My mate who's a teacher does this. Spends the summer driving tourists around on coach tours. Surprised it's not more common. 

Probably not common because they are all loaded and too busy sunning themselves in the Bahamas!

 

 

 

The above post may or may not be in jest.