The years of discontent, 2022/23

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

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.

 

No it clearly has changed, given that:

 a) the demand is now rooted in the idea that there's now a cost of living crisis in UK society and

 b) a universal, 10% pay increase from a negligible increase in funds is apparently The Only Possible Solution to a).

That's an entirely different context to regular pay bargaining.

The reality is that large groups of people in society are going to have to take a hit because of the utter nonsense political economy that we have lolloped into. Partly due to crap decisions made from 2016 onwards (Brexit); partly from crap decisions made in 2020/21 (setting the economy on fire because of the zero Covid cult); and last but not least the utterly moronic economic war that western Europe was goaded into fighting earlier this year to the sole benefit of US and Middle Eastern energy exporters. No amount of ideal-world political grandstanding is going to change the fact that right here and right now, there's not enough to go round to cover inflationary pressures. 

The only relevant question then is which groups should lose out in relative terms. Well-paid senior teachers should absolutely lose out in comparison to their junior colleagues - because their decades of higher earnings shield them to a far greater degree from harm. Teachers in general should lose out relative to support roles whose staff are absolutely in need of a full increase with inflation. 

The same principle should apply across the board. A flat cash cost of living increase allows more support for those who need it. If unions are going to preach about a cost of living crisis, then they have to reflect that in their actions right now as well. 

Edited November 25, 2022 by vikingTON

[scottsdad]

59 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.

You do get what paid annual leave is, right?

 

[Todd_is_God]

51 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

You do get what paid annual leave is, right?

Yes. Teachers get 40 days of it. They also get 26 days of unpaid leave called "school closure" days.

Little wonder the prof runs rings round you with this type of wit.

[scottsdad]

And of course teachers use all this time just sitting with their feet up doing hee haw...right...

[Todd_is_God]

1 minute ago, scottsdad said:

And of course teachers use all this time just sitting with their feet up doing hee haw...right...

That's an entirely seperate issue, and one which has been covered already.

Maybe had you read the thread instead of arriving late with a wild lunge you'd have known this.

[scottsdad]

4 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

That's an entirely seperate issue, and one which has been covered already.

Maybe had you read the thread instead of arriving late with a wild lunge you'd have known this.

You are making a clear point about teachers only working10.5 months per year. It is a simplistic reduction of the role of a teacher.

I have been reading the thread, and find some of the takes on here wild. Teachers are very well paid, and get massive holidays? In the minds of some on here maybe, not in the reality of actual teachers.

[Todd_is_God]

4 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

You are making a clear point about teachers only working10.5 months per year. It is a simplistic reduction of the role of a teacher.

I have been reading the thread, and find some of the takes on here wild. Teachers are very well paid, and get massive holidays? In the minds of some on here maybe, not in the reality of actual teachers.

No. My point is they are paid for 10.5 months work.

If teachers are unhappy about not being able to complete their workload within their contracted hours then they should strike to get increased support with said workload instead of claiming they are underpaid.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Todd_is_God

[vikingTON]

17 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

And of course teachers use all this time just sitting with their feet up doing hee haw...right...

Some of them do and some of them don't. In the same way that lots of other workers don't stick to their contracts and take their work with them.

Perhaps such educated graduates could try applying their skills to working out how to do their job more efficiently, instead of getting up on their cross and pretending that an enormous amount of annual leave isn't a perk of their position (it unquestionably is). 

[MacDonald Jardine]

32 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

You are making a clear point about teachers only working10.5 months per year. It is a simplistic reduction of the role of a teacher.

I have been reading the thread, and find some of the takes on here wild. Teachers are very well paid, and get massive holidays? In the minds of some on here maybe, not in the reality of actual teachers.

By reality you mean the minds of teachers  

[MacDonald Jardine]

3 hours ago, Billy Jean King said:

4 hours ago, virginton said:

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.

I'm not sure about Inverclyde but it's certainly not all.

[vikingTON]

25 minutes ago, MacDonald Jardine said:

I'm not sure about Inverclyde but it's certainly not all.

There's also people on temporary contracts doing worthwhile jobs (library staff etc.) whose contracts won't be extended. It's not just people taking a nice wee early retirement - it is jobs and essential services being lost to the community. 

But aye let's hope that an extra £2k can just be shovelled in to the accounts of heads of department across the country instead because Worker Solidarity. 

[Bairnardo]

There's also people on temporary contracts doing worthwhile jobs (library staff etc.) whose contracts won't be extended. It's not just people taking a nice wee early retirement - it is jobs and essential services being lost to the community. 
But aye let's hope that an extra £2k can just be shovelled in to the accounts of heads of department across the country instead because Worker Solidarity. 

This is a serious question now. How do you (or anyone else) know where the line is drawn between affordable pay rise, which presumably includes any initial offer, and unaffordable pay rise which necessitates diversion of other funds and other people to lose jobs/services/become worse off as a result?

Pay offers were made, as per standard yearly practice, long before a single vote to strike was cast. So are we to take public sector employers and Scotgov unquestioningly at their word, that any request over and above their first offer, is unaffordable and requires cuts?

[vikingTON]

11 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

This is a serious question now. How do you (or anyone else) know where the line is drawn between affordable pay rise, which presumably includes any initial offer, and unaffordable pay rise which necessitates diversion of other funds and other people to lose jobs/services/become worse off as a result?

Pay offers were made, as per standard yearly practice, long before a single vote to strike was cast. So are we to take public sector employers and Scotgov unquestioningly at their word, that any request over and above their first offer, is unaffordable and requires cuts?

Public sector employers are the government in one form or other - and the Scottish Government does not have the power to magic up extra funds in its budget to cover universal pay increases all round. Councils don't either and are at the bottom rung of this process. In what bizarre, alternate universe do you think that it's in the interests of the SG right now to have its own public sector employees on strike? Not least given that the snippy parent brigade will be out in force soon enough as a consequence. That is the political reality and we do not need to thumb through every single column in the budget to grasp it. 

And any public resources that are available right now have roughly 10,000 more deserving job roles/schemes/facilities to cover first, before the terrible plight of a senior teacher getting a below inflation pay offer should be addressed. 

Once again - if unions are so concerned about the current cost of living crisis then it's time that they started reflecting that in their bargaining. Universal inflation-matching rises including people who are earning well above the median salary is not a credible stance. 

Edited November 25, 2022 by vikingTON

[Bairnardo]

Public sector employers are the government in one form or other - and the Scottish Government does not have the power to magic up extra funds in its budget to cover universal pay increases all round. Councils don't either and are at the bottom rung of this process. In what bizarre, alternate universe do you think that it's in the interests of the SG right now to have its own public sector employees on strike? Not least given that the snippy parent brigade will be out in force soon enough as a consequence. That is the political reality and we do not need to thumb through every single column in the budget to grasp it. 
And any public resources that are available right now have roughly 10,000 more deserving job roles/schemes/facilities to cover first, before the terrible plight of a senior teacher getting a below inflation pay offer should be addressed. 
Once again - if unions are so concerned about the current cost of living crisis then it's time that they started reflecting that in their bargaining. Universal inflation-matching rises including people who are earning well above the median salary is not a credible stance. 

That would be fair enough if you were arguing there should be no wage rise for certain people of a certain salary. Iv not seen anyone honest enough to say thats what they think, if anyone does think that. If not, then its simply a case of cherry picking the extra few % they are fighting for and saying thats selfish and inaffordable... Except no one can credibly demonstrate that this extra top up amount is some sort of service wrecking calamity amount of money. Salaries will be driven up one way or the other. If public sector workers are low balled for long enough, they will f**k off in their droves. And then, guess what the public sector will have to do to attract and retain staff....

[Todd_is_God]

5 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Yeah, see this bit in bold? That's where you lose your audience mate.

I couldn't give a shit about my "audience" tbh. There's a teacher a few pages back who confirmed that 26 days per year are officially unpaid.

You not understanding that doesn't change it.

[scottsdad]

10 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

I couldn't give a shit about my "audience" tbh. There's a teacher a few pages back who confirmed that 26 days per year are officially unpaid.

You not understanding that doesn't change it.

Where was this post?

All i can see from that past day or so is you making this claim over and over again, and @Monkey Tennis asking you what the source of this information is. You then repeat the claim.

If I missed a post somewhere, my bad.

But wherever you look (e.g. here) it mentions the annual salary of teachers. No wee asterix. In fact (and I did see this a few pages back):

Quote

 The working year for teachers shall consist of 195 days of which 190 days will coincide with the school year for pupils with the remaining five days being worked by the individual teachers on duties as planned by the council.

Where you are getting yourself confused is this the statement that teachers get paid 40 days per year annual leave, but are away from schools for longer than this. Days when the schools are closed are not unpaid leave. We have this at university also - buildings closed days at Christmas and Easter which do not count towards annual leave but are, nevertheless, paid days off.

[MacDonald Jardine]

1 minute ago, scottsdad said:

Where was this post?

All i can see from that past day or so is you making this claim over and over again, and @Monkey Tennis asking you what the source of this information is. You then repeat the claim.

If I missed a post somewhere, my bad.

But wherever you look (e.g. here) it mentions the annual salary of teachers. No wee asterix. In fact (and I did see this a few pages back):

Where you are getting yourself confused is this the statement that teachers get paid 40 days per year annual leave, but are away from schools for longer than this. Days when the schools are closed are not unpaid leave. We have this at university also - buildings closed days at Christmas and Easter which do not count towards annual leave but are, nevertheless, paid days off.

I'd agree entirely about this.

However,  some teachers (not on this thread) repeat the mantra they aren't paid for the school holiday periods. 

[Monkey Tennis]

9 minutes ago, MacDonald Jardine said:

I'd agree entirely about this.

However,  some teachers (not on this thread) repeat the mantra they aren't paid for the school holiday periods. 

Who?

Where?

 

It's a new claim on me.

[vikingTON]

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

2 hours ago, virginton said:

 

That would be fair enough if you were arguing there should be no wage rise for certain people of a certain salary. Iv not seen anyone honest enough to say thats what they think, if anyone does think that. If not, then its simply a case of cherry picking the extra few % they are fighting for and saying thats selfish and inaffordable...

Why would that be fair enough? 

It's actually a far more logical approach to say:

1) every employee should be getting a pay rise

2) That pay rise should be tapered though to give inflation protection to those who need it, while giving a smaller rise to those who don't

which is why I hold that view. 

There has yet to be a single credible argument for why that should not be the default solution to a 'cost of living crisis' that doesn't even remotely affect everyone equally. So either we bin all the cost of living mewling in the discussion, or we ditch the bizarre tantrums/snobbery that lesser workers might justify receiving a higher percentage pay rise for a change. 

Quote

Except no one can credibly demonstrate that this extra top up amount is some sort of service wrecking calamity amount of money.

The demonstration is clear to see for anyone who has used public services or has picked up a fucking newspaper any time in the past 9 months. The onus is really on you to demonstrate why there's a grand 'no money left' con trick, being orchestrated by a SG that is anxious to pick no fights with anyone prior to a second referendum. Because your stance defies any logic at all.

Quote

Salaries will be driven up one way or the other. If public sector workers are low balled for long enough, they will f**k off in their droves. And then, guess what the public sector will have to do to attract and retain staff....

We're talking about teachers here M8. Will they f**k. Most trained teachers won't even move from their home region in the Central Belt for a job in the outlying parts of their own country - even when there are significant financial incentives in place to do so. 

And given the number of graduates that are being churned out that need that fail-safe option (and there currently being a far greater supply of candidates than teacher  training places in the vast majority of subject areas), they can quite easily be replaced by the existing market.  

Edited November 25, 2022 by vikingTON

[Bairnardo]

We're talking about teachers here M8. Will they f**k. Most trained teachers won't even move from their home region in the Central Belt for a job in the outlying parts of their own country - even when there are significant financial incentives in place to do so. 
And given the number of graduates that are being churned out that need that fail-safe option (and there currently being a far greater supply of candidates than teacher  training places in the vast majority of subject areas), they can quite easily be replaced by the existing market.  

I dont know that anyone is arguing against tapered wage rises. As I understand it, the crux of debate on here for several months now is people kicking off that some workforces have rejected the initial offer and asked for more.

The make up of how that more is made up, is secondary to the fact that we have been assured by many, that a rejection of the first offer (assumed to be fully funded, but yet, at the absolute limit of affordability, making it probably the first time in history and employers first offer is literally everything they can manage) is selfish and results directly in cuts and costs to other, less fortunate people.

I would say the onus of proving their stance is as much on people taking that position, if not moreso, than it is on people like me who are saying "I back these people in their pursuit of a fair deal"