The years of discontent, 2022/23

[Monkey Tennis]

7 minutes ago, virginton said:

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. 

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.

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.  

Chronic staff shortages in certain subject areas already.

[Billy Jean King]

Then why are you so adamant that you are right?

About what ? That the SG will continue the pedal the "no more money" line (I think that's what that exchange was about) ?

[Todd_is_God]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

Then why are you so adamant that you are right?

That the SG has a finite pot of money is an unavoidable fact. Unless they are returning surplusses to WM each year then every penny of that pot is being spent somewhere.

If @Billy Jean King wishes to argue, categorically, that in order to increase the money in one part of that pot they do not first have to remove it from another part of it then they should be able to show that quite easily.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Todd_is_God

[MacDonald Jardine]

2 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Who?

Where?

 

It's a new claim on me.

Within my work. 

I'm not going to name them or the employer. 

[Bairnardo]

That the SG has a finite pot of money is an unavoidable fact. Unless they are returning surplusses to WM each year then every penny of that pot is being spent somewhere.
If [mention=29985]Billy Jean King[/mention] wishes to argue, categorically, that in order to increase the money in one part of that pot they do not first have to remove it from another part of it then they should be able to show that quite easily.

Perhaps additional money is found by lowballing the first offer.

Or do we have the worst negotiators in history in our Government, who steam into wage talks with unionised and disgruntled workforces, with the full pot, no contingencies available to avoid dispute should the first offer not be graciously accepted with no questions asked?

I could just as equally demand you prove me wrong. All of this "you should be able to prove" chat is probably above the level of a discussion on a football forum though.

[Monkey Tennis]

7 minutes ago, MacDonald Jardine said:

Within my work. 

I'm not going to name them or the employer. 

Ok, so how many of these weirdo teachers at your work, wherever that is "repeat the mantra they aren't paid for the school holiday periods." ?

I've never met one such individual, ever.

[Billy Jean King]

That the SG has a finite pot of money is an unavoidable fact. Unless they are returning surplusses to WM each year then every penny of that pot is being spent somewhere.
If [mention=29985]Billy Jean King[/mention] wishes to argue, categorically, that in order to increase the money in one part of that pot they do not first have to remove it from another part of it then they should be able to show that quite easily.

As I said before none of us know where this money has come from as the SG haven't said so no idea what you are banging on about now. I never said it didn't come from existing funds, what I did say was that whether it did or didn't the SG will continue to pedal the line "there is no more" as they think (clearly wrongly) that it will stop people asking for more. There might not be extra funds (although the UKG budget announcement suggests there will be), that was never my argument but somehow, yet again they have managed to come up with yet another "final" improved offer during an industrial dispute. Every time it happens it dilutes your argument ie that you believe 100% that the SG are right / being totally truthful.

Must say this is real "shoe on the other foot" stuff with you adamant the SG are right and me far from convinced [emoji28]

[Billy Jean King]

We could all argue about this until the cows come home I suppose but Humza could put us all out of our misery by simply explaining where he found £35 million that wasn't available last week.
IMO he's cut funding to other sources or he's dipped into a secret reserve fund that only the privileged few know about.

35m ??? It's an extra £515m according to the Health Secretary.

https://www.gov.scot/news/nhs-staff-offered-record-high-pay-rise/

[ICTChris]

Sixteen new strike dates announced by teachers union.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63759720
 

 

[Monkey Tennis]

On 26/11/2022 at 08:06, ICTChris said:

Sixteen new strike dates announced by teachers union.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-63759720
 

 

The superficial news coverage of this bugged me.

I heard it as a soundbite on Radio 5 on Friday.  The clear implication was that teachers would all be on strike for 16 days in January, thus shutting schools for most of the month.  Of course, given the way it's being organised across regions, the reality is nothing like that at all.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Monkey Tennis

[Honest_Man#1]

On 25/11/2022 at 16:18, Monkey Tennis said:

Who?

Where?

 

It's a new claim on me.

@Gaz definitely posted about this the last time the subject came up. I remember questioning it at the time but can’t remember exactly what his response was tbh.

[Monkey Tennis]

On 25/11/2022 at 09:34, oaksoft said:

Teachers are very well paid. Period.

I think that's a stretch to be honest.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that teachers receive poverty wages, because they clearly don't.  I read something the other day about teachers using food banks.  That stuff doesn't help because any teacher in need of that kind of support, has financial difficulties from elsewhere that aren't dictated by their teaching income.  Similarly, I quite often cringe when I hear teachers complaining about money in front of other staff who earn a fraction of what they do.  It's insensitive and ignorant and definitely happens.

However, it is a profession, that requires a degree and in most cases a postgraduate qualification.  Set against others, pay isn't especially good and the structure is rigid and limited.  It's certainly the case that teachers in this country have been very much better paid at points than they are now.

When it comes to the question of unpromoted teachers requiring a bigger pay rise, there's a logic there, but I think there's a collective failure to appreciate the differences between roles and posts in teaching.  People tend to think they know what's involved (in a way they don't with other jobs) because they went to school once.  The reality is that promoted roles are generally excessively demanding and without significant pay differentials, nobody would apply for such posts.

 

[Gordon EF]

52 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

However, it is a profession, that requires a degree and in most cases a postgraduate qualification.  Set against others, pay isn't especially good and the structure is rigid and limited.  It's certainly the case that teachers in this country have been very much better paid at points than they are now.

 

It's pretty difficult to come to a reasonable conclusion about what public sector employees "should" earn vs privtae sector employees beause they're obviously not really subject to the same laws of supply and demand than the private sector.

But is the 'graduate' angle really convincing? It's difficult to find like for like stats but i can't find anything that suggests the average graduate is earning more than the average teacher.

[Monkey Tennis]

17 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

It's pretty difficult to come to a reasonable conclusion about what public sector employees "should" earn vs privtae sector employees beause they're obviously not really subject to the same laws of supply and demand than the private sector.

But is the 'graduate' angle really convincing? It's difficult to find like for like stats but i can't find anything that suggests the average graduate is earning more than the average teacher.

I don't have any figures either.

Remember though, that lots of graduates don't find 'graduate jobs'.  I don't think that teaching is necessarily "very well paid" in terms of jobs which do absolutely require degrees, which is all I was saying.

Edited November 27, 2022 by Monkey Tennis

[TxRover]

26 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I don't have any figures either.

Remember though, that lots of graduates don't find 'graduate jobs'.  I don't think that teaching is necessarily "very well paid" in terms of jobs which do absolutely require degrees, which is all I was saying.

Some figures from 2018-2019 showed an average salary of £24,000 for those not seeking higher education, £34,000 for those at the Batchelor's level, while Postgraduate added another £6,000 on top of the graduate number, up to £40,000.

In the 21-30 range, the Batchelor's degree difference was less, around £4,500.

[ICTChris]

There was a diagram in one of the news stories about this, I can’t find it but here are the pay scales for a teacher in Scotland.

https://www.nasuwt.org.uk/advice/pay-pensions/pay-scales/scotland-pay-scales.html

For ‘ordinary’ teachers it’s between £33k and £43k, roughly. Depending which Google answer you use the average salary in Scotland is about £31k. 

[Gordon EF]

2 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I don't have any figures either.

Remember though, that lots of graduates don't find 'graduate jobs'.  I don't think that teaching is necessarily "very well paid" in terms of jobs which do absolutely require degrees, which is all I was saying.

Ah right. Fair point. I'd agree. It doesn't make sense to compare teaching to the natonal average/median and point teachers as 'well paid'.

[Gaz]

19 hours ago, Honest_Man#1 said:

@Gaz definitely posted about this the last time the subject came up. I remember questioning it at the time but can’t remember exactly what his response was tbh.

It's fairly straightforward.

Every teacher in Scotland's local authority schools follow the terms and conditions set out by the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers.

We are contracted to work 195 days. 190 days in school with 5 in-service days (Part 2, Section 3).

We are entitled to 40 days holiday a year (Part 2, Section 5).

We get five weeks' unpaid holiday in addition to this.

You can argue about whether it's semantics or data manipulation, but the SNCT guide is freely available online.

[Carl Cort's Hamstring]

I know this chat is focused on the issues in Scotland, but I thought I'd through in my tuppence worth from the perspective of a teacher in England.

@Monkey Tennis post above echoes a lot of my thoughts. I disagree with the idea that teachers are "very well paid." The job is highly skilled, demanding and requires a degree (and often a post-grad). Put in that context, I think the pay is alright. We're not on the breadline, but I also work with quite a few people who could earn ( or have previously earned) a lot more in other professions.

I decided against strike action, and felt that I couldn't in good conscience vote for it, although I will support my union when the ballot inevitably comes out in favour of striking. The UK government's offer of 5% for experienced teachers (slightly more for new staff) is already unfunded and schools will have to make cuts elsewhere to pay for it. An 11% rise would almost certainly lead to redundancies amongst support staff, many of whom are already struggling as it is.

It's fair to say that teachers often exist in a bubble and, as MT mentioned, you'll hear people on £40k+ in the staffroom talk about pay in a way that is frankly insulting to our support staff, who are on not much more than minimum wage. On the other hand, the job is far more demanding than most people realise. I'm a full time class teacher and a core subject leader in a primary school, and it is impossible to do both jobs properly within my working hours to the standard that I need to. The pay I get for that is absolutely not in line with the amount of responsibility and pressure involved.

 

 

[Monkey Tennis]

4 hours ago, Gaz said:

It's fairly straightforward.

Every teacher in Scotland's local authority schools follow the terms and conditions set out by the Scottish Negotiating Committee for Teachers.

We are contracted to work 195 days. 190 days in school with 5 in-service days (Part 2, Section 3).

We are entitled to 40 days holiday a year (Part 2, Section 5).

We get five weeks' unpaid holiday in addition to this.

You can argue about whether it's semantics or data manipulation, but the SNCT guide is freely available online.

Fair enough.

I have honestly never heard this "unpaid holiday" lark in my life before seeing it mentioned here.  You live and learn I suppose.

I don't think it actually means anything, but it seems a strange way to express it.  What's the reason for it?