Benfits storm kicks off - 17k a year couple don't fancy working

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by PracticalMac

I wonder if benefits are 99% food only, how long before they get job?

You don't just want them to get a job, ideally you want them to get an equivalent job to what they did before.

[iGav]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

The counter to that is that people like teachers, nurses etc. who make up a substantial proportion of the government budget usually work very hard.

Ah, the old teachers and nurses argument.

You mean the same teachers that were incredulous at being expected to retire at 65 and then 67 like everyone else? The same teachers that only work 195 days per year (though they are expected to "do some work during their holidays") the same teachers that enjoy the second largest public sector pension scheme in the country? Probably not the best example of hard workers really.

Seriously though… teachers and nurses are not the problem and that's not the point I was making. Essentially, the problem is that we have a public sector that considers it to be perfectly acceptable to employ 23,700 people doing what 400 can apparently do. It's that inherent inefficiency (that is widespread throughout the public sector) in how the public sector operates that is the problem.

That inefficiency is every bit as criminal as tax avoidance or the misuse of benefits.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

But a lot/most of those empty homes will be in places where there aren't jobs.

Do you have hard figures for that or is it an assumption?

Also it is not unreasonable to expect people to commute to their jobs, jobs that may well be in another town or city or even county.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Sure.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/bligh...welfare_reform

Brilliant, appreciate that… couldn't find it anywhere. I'll shall have a look-see now.

Though skimming through it, it could well be difficult taking any article seriously that tries to support its argument by referring to "There is already a fair amount of support through tax credits introduced by Gordon Brown when he was chancellor of the exchequer," whilst ignoring the fact that those tax credits were necessary because he made the poor even poorer by doubling income tax for the poorest from 10% to 20%.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by iGav

The same teachers that only work 195 days per year (though they are expected to "do some work during their holidays")

Excluding bank holidays, there are only 252 working days for normal workers
- so once you include paid holiday even in the private sector works only work something like 225-232 days a year. Which is only 18% more working days.

If teachers do an extra 7.5 hours a week of marking and lesson planning outside of normal working hours then you make up that extra working time conducted by the private sector.

Originally Posted by iGav

Essentially, the problem is that we have a public sector that considers it to be perfectly acceptable to employ 23,700 people doing what 400 can apparently do. It's that inherent inefficiency (that is widespread throughout the public sector) in how the public sector operates that is the problem.

My issue is that even if we crush all these inefficiencies, we'll probably only save £10-15 billion/year or so, which while it isn't a small amount of money its not that much in government terms either.

----------

Originally Posted by iGav

Do you have hard figures for that or is it an assumption?

I have now taken a look at: http://www.emptyhomes.com/statistics...istice-201112/

The overall rate in London is 2.12%, in the South East it is 2.64% and in the north east it is 3.79% and 4.11% in the North West, so it is certainly significantly higher in areas with less jobs.

Long term it is more pronounced, with 1.81% of homes empty in the North West, 1.57% in the North East vs 0.71% in London and 0.82% in the South East.

Although to be fair all of the percentages of empty houses are pretty low.

Originally Posted by iGav

Also it is not unreasonable to expect people to commute to their jobs, jobs that may well be in another town or city or even county.

If you live in the north you can't exactly commute down to London - if only on cost grounds.

[RSL]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

The median UK salary is about £21k/year or so.

That's precisely the point. Salaries are too low. Raise wages and people will be glad to work.

[RSL]

Originally Posted by iGav

The inherent wastefulness and inefficiency of the public sector in general is a far, far, far greater problem, and one that only got greater under Labour, remember a massive & bloated public sector, affects GDP.

Whoa whoa whoa! Hold on now.

"Inherent wastefulness": care to justify this statement? What makes the public sector inherently wasteful?

Here are a few counterexamples which come to mind: healthcare in the USA (private) vs Europe (public), railways in the UK (private) vs France (semi-public), electricity in Germany (private) vs France (semi-public). In all of these cases the price is way higher in the private than in the (semi-)public, therefore less bang for the buck.

What does "inefficient" mean? How do you measure efficiency? I think that to measure efficiency you would have to compare the price and quality of service. Yet it seems difficult to quantify quality. In any case, the examples above probably disprove your statement.

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by iGav

I can. Whilst I agree that housing is a big problem, it is far, far, far from being the biggest.

The inherent wastefulness and inefficiency of the public sector in general is a far, far, far greater problem, and one that only got greater under Labour, remember a massive & bloated public sector, affects GDP.

Look at the procurement practices of the Government (and the general public sector), Education, NHS, Social Security, and the military alone. As Jon Snow said on Channel 4 News: "When it comes to military procurement, Israel spends £9 billion a year and administers its purchases with 400 people. Britain spends £10 billion annually on procurement and has a staff of 23,700 to do it."

23,700… Even if those figures are greatly exaggerated, it'd still be completely and utterly absurd. Both my brother and sister-in-law work in local government, and what they tell me is frightening, if the private sector was run like the public sector… then there wouldn't be a private sector. Simple.

The worrying thing is, is that doesn't even scratch the surface.

And people complain about cutting the 50% tax rate.

Building more houses is going to do very little if many of those new houses are either housing association, or purchased by individuals or companies as either second/third homes or as investment properties. Until the Government closes tax loopholes… and reforms everything from capital gains to council tax on these type of people/properties, then building more homes is going to do little to address the bigger problems we as a country face.

It also does nothing to address the issue of empty housing, in 2011 there was estimated between 700k+ and 1 million empty homes, that's a lot of houses stood empty doing nothing already. I suspect (though I am not sure) that that figure doesn't include holiday homes for example, those (particularly in coastal and rural communities) that are left vacant for 50 weeks of the year... not to mention the devastating impact these empty homes have on local economies.



So, pretty much like the subjects of this thread then. Maybe the divide between rich and poor isn't so great after all.



With an average of £26,500.

P.S. Eraser, could you post a link the article on the Economist about the 96% effective tax rate, I've not been able to find it, and whilst I'm not a fan of the Economist, I would love to read it to see their rationale for that figure.

While I do see that there is a problem with government spending, I'm very wary of the old Thatcher idea that the markets know best.

The whole unregulated touch lite markets, are what got the worlds economies into the major problems that they now face.

I always notice that these so called free market people don't want governments to stop them taking risks with rules, but if it all goes wrong then they want the governments to bail them out.

The UK could save a lot of money by first not fighting war after war, as allies of the USA, and the second is leave the EU.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by RSL

That's precisely the point. Salaries are too low. Raise wages and people will be glad to work.

Then you probably have to raise skill levels as well - which is hard. We probably should try though.

[iGav]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Excluding bank holidays, there are only 252 working days for normal workers
- so once you include paid holiday even in the private sector works only work something like 225-232 days a year. Which is only 18% more working days.

Whichever way you paint it, teachers still get an excellent deal, what with their generous pensions, fewer working days, greater holidays, and early retirement. But again, you missed my point. You knowingly used the old and well worn sympathy argument of using teachers & nurses as some kind of example of how hard working the public sector is, both of which, if you read my post, I had conceded weren't really the problem I was referring to. It's seldom the frontline staff that are the actual issue.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

If teachers do an extra 7.5 hours a week of marking and lesson planning outside of normal working hours then you make up that extra working time conducted by the private sector.

You're conveniently ignoring the fact that other people have to do work outside normal hours as well. You're also conveniently forgetting the culture of (unpaid) overtime in the private sector.

Anyway, you don't need to tell me about teachers, my partner is a teacher, and I was (and occasionally still am) a lecturer.

Whilst what I posted was entirely accurate, it was posted more with a nudge-nudge, wink-wink.

Anyway, to the more important and pertinent topic at hand, because really, we're not actually disagreeing here.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

My issue is that even if we crush all these inefficiencies, we'll probably only save £10-15 billion/year or so, which while it isn't a small amount of money its not that much in government terms either.

The problem is, we as a nation have gotten into a mindset that says £10-15 billion a year… is "not that much in government terms", when actually it is.

My issue is that we should be crushing all of these inefficiencies, along with addressing things like tax avoidance, tax evasion, benefit fraud, misuse of benefits… etc. My point is, it's really not as simple as tax the rich, make them pay their taxes… blah blah blah.

It's like that pretty little picture that Peterkro posted on the previous page, the one that was conducted by the TUC, that, like any organisation with a political bias and agenda, was careful to present figures in a way that gives the impression, in this case that benefit fraud represents only 0.7%, is only a relatively small amount, yet that 0.7 equates to a figure exceeding £1 billion. £1 billion, that's a lot of teachers, or police or nurses right there. Or my personal preference would be for financial assistance to currently unpaid carers… aka… a salary.

The figure of £10-15 billion is an assumption, but when you start toting up up all of the figures, it is far, far, far greater than £10-15 billion, if you have an efficient public sector, that works well, then it benefits everyone.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

I have now taken a look at: http://www.emptyhomes.com/statistics...istice-201112/

Already read it yesterday. Hence why I called you on it.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

The overall rate in London is 2.12%, in the South East it is 2.64% and in the north east it is 3.79% and 4.11% in the North West, so it is certainly significantly higher in areas with less jobs.

Long term it is more pronounced, with 1.81% of homes empty in the North West, 1.57% in the North East vs 0.71% in London and 0.82% in the South East.

Although to be fair all of the percentages of empty houses are pretty low.

Your original statement wasn't entirely accurate, more an assumption (though a completely fair one to make). The stats are on a county level, personally I think it'd be a gross generalisation to state that there "there aren't jobs" in the Northwest for example.

Of course the main problem with that list is the notable omissions, Uninhabitable homes, Homes due for demolition (doesn't necessarily mean they're unfit for occupation) and Flats above shops. Not to mention the vagueness of whether second/third/holiday homes are included or not.

From what we know, there's in excess of 1 million empty homes, the argument swings more from the actual number of homes needed (though I agree we do still need to build), to more the actual location of these homes to be built, which of course potentially has serious ramifications, not only for the remaining countryside that will be sacrificed, but also for those areas that are currently experiencing higher rates of unemployment, build more homes where there's work, more leave the areas where there isn't… that area declines further, that's why building more homes isn't the biggest problem. It's more complex than that.

And that still doesn't address what I said in my first post, that building more houses is going to do very little if many of those new houses are either housing association, or purchased by individuals or companies as either second/third homes or as investment properties. Until the Government closes tax loopholes… and reforms everything from capital gains to council tax on these type of people/properties, then building more homes is going to do little to address the bigger problems.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

If you live in the north you can't exactly commute down to London - if only on cost grounds.

Ah, the old London argument.

Though I know several people who commute from Manchester and Leeds to London and back everyday. They're not particularly well paid, but they're willing to make compromises and sacrifices to do a job they love, and live in the place that they love. Like I said, it's not unreasonable to expect people to have to commute. Though even I would concede that 200 miles is perhaps excessive, but there are other large towns and cities situated around the country. And certainly I would suggest to you, that perhaps the majority of people live within a commutable distance to these towns and cities, and thus employment.

Originally Posted by RSL

What does "inefficient" mean? How do you measure efficiency?

It means why employ 23,700 to do a job that 400 people can apparently do?
It means not paying £22 for lightbulbs that can be purchased for 65p.
It means when you run a tender for a government contract to run the main arterial train route of the UK, you make sure that the tender is run correctly, and not in way that costs the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds to fix the ****-up and require that the tender be run again.
It means carrying out the basic duties of care in hospitals, so that ****-ups are reduced so you don't have to pay out millions in compensation because you kill people through sheer incompetence.

But it's not just the big areas, I could give you a hilarious example from local government about the tender process for a cleaning contract.

Originally Posted by RSL

In any case, the examples above probably disprove your statement.

No. They don't. Not even close.

Originally Posted by Happybunny

While I do see that there is a problem with government spending, I'm very wary of the old Thatcher idea that the markets know best.

It's really not a Thatcher idea, nor that markets know best.

It's simply a basic one that an organisation (in this case, the public sector) should be run effectively and efficiently, maximising the best use of public money. At the moment, in the UK, that is not the case.

Of course, it's not the case with the EU either... and how the "error rate", "the degree of non-compliance with the rules governing the spending, such as breaches of public procurement rules, ineligible or incorrect calculation of costs claimed to EU co-financed projects," means that EU accounts, for how many years is it now? 18? continue to be refused to be signed off by the European Court of Auditors.

it's not just inept incompetence on an enormous scale, it's criminal.

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Then you probably have to raise skill levels as well - which is hard. We probably should try though.

Bingo. That's the root of the issue. Education (and I don't just mean in schools). It's the very foundation of society. It's the thing that teaches people skills, that teaches people responsibility.

[sim667]

I think it says more on the state of employment and pay, if he had to do workfare to still get his benefits doing the same job he'd still get more money than actually doing the job itself, from his point of view, its sensible, and from my point of view I dont go to work if I dont want to.

But then that results in the government subsidising companies employment wise who are already making 100's of millions of pounds, and in some cases avoiding the tax which contributions to paying for policies like that.

[Peterkro]

Originally Posted by iGav

It's like that pretty little picture that Peterkro posted on the previous page, the one that was conducted by the TUC, that, like any organisation with a political bias and agenda, was careful to present figures in a way that gives the impression, in this case that benefit fraud represents only 0.7%, is only a relatively small amount, yet that 0.7 equates to a figure exceeding £1 billion. £1 billion, that's a lot of teachers, or police or nurses right there. Or my personal preference would be for financial assistance to currently unpaid carers… aka… a salary.

It was commissioned by the TUC and conducted by YouGov.
The point of the graph was to see the publics perception of benefits.
Now .7% while a large amount of money is about the rate of any large scale program involving qualification.It's also dwarfed by a) overpayment by the depts. involved (which is one example of how the public service could be run more efficiently and not with a low paid alienated workforce as it is at the moment) and b)gigantically dwarfed by those that are qualified for benefits and do not claim them.
The enormous amounts of money lost by tax avoidance would surely be a better candidate for saving cash than going after the very poorest people in society who even if they do qualify for benefits are living hand to mouth.

Originally Posted by iGav

It means why employ 23,700 to do a job that 400 people can apparently do?
It means not paying £22 for lightbulbs that can be purchased for 65p.

It may be that I missed your post but could you point me to where these figures come from?

[RSL]

Originally Posted by iGav

It means why employ 23,700 to do a job that 400 people can apparently do?
It means not paying £22 for lightbulbs that can be purchased for 65p.
It means when you run a tender for a government contract to run the main arterial train route of the UK, you make sure that the tender is run correctly, and not in way that costs the taxpayer tens of millions of pounds to fix the ****-up and require that the tender be run again.
It means carrying out the basic duties of care in hospitals, so that ****-ups are reduced so you don't have to pay out millions in compensation because you kill people through sheer incompetence.

That's not a definition of efficiency. Give me a formula and clearly state what the parameters are. Make sure that the following are included: cost, customer satisfaction, workplace well-being, social impact, environment impact. Of course you first have to quantify these categories and clearly explain your method for doing so.

Anyway, let's have a look at your examples. According to the first, efficiency has something to do with having less people do the same job. Let's see, less people in a hospital means longer hours, which induces more human error. Oops, that contradicts your later example of efficiency.

I have stated lots of examples in which the private sector is more costly than the private sector. Let me give you another one which I only recently heard of. In Germany, Munich is a notoriously expensive city, whilst Berlin is notoriously cheap. Yet water costs 50% more in Berlin than in Munich. Guess what? In Munich water is administered by the city, whilst it is private in Berlin.

What these examples clearly show is that for some things the public sector delivers the goods much better than the private sector.

I'm sorry if reality conflicts with your ideology.

[iGav]

Originally Posted by Peterkro

It was commissioned by the TUC and conducted by YouGov.

...& canvassed in Westminster.

Originally Posted by Peterkro

The point of the graph was to see the publics perception of benefits.
Now .7% while a large amount of money is about the rate of any large scale program involving qualification.

A small proportion of the public, and presented in a way that masks the true monetary figure that people would be able to relate. I've read figures that have suggested the benefit fraud is potentially as high as £5.5 billion, regardless and for obvious reasons, it's certainly higher than 0.7 but neither figure is an acceptable amount, when that money could be put to better use, like in the example I gave.

Originally Posted by Peterkro

It's also dwarfed by a) overpayment by the depts. involved (which is one example of how the public service could be run more efficiently and not with a low paid alienated workforce as it is at the moment) and b)gigantically dwarfed by those that are qualified for benefits and do not claim them.

And not just overpayment.

Of course there's an argument to be made, that if you only need 400 rather than 23,700, then those 400 people could be paid a better salary (of course I'm aware that's an extreme example, but the point stands). Essentially why employ 2 people to do a job when 1 is sufficient to fulfil a particular role.

We should be mindful not to automatically equate public sector to low pay, research by the Office for National Statistics suggest that, public sector pay is higher than that of the private sector and that the gap is widening.

Originally Posted by Peterkro

The enormous amounts of money lost by tax avoidance would surely be a better candidate for saving cash than going after the very poorest people in society who even if they do qualify for benefits are living hand to mouth.

I do not disagree with you, however if the money that is raised is wasted in an inefficient public sector, it's unfair to you, it's unfair to me, it's unfair to the people that do need the help.

Personally I fail to see how addressing public sector inefficiency is going to negatively impact the poorest in society. There's an overwhelmingly strong argument to be made, that if such inefficiencies were addressed, that the tax and benefits system were simplified (the real elephant in the room), then you don't need as many people to administer and manage the system, that along with other efficiency savings means more help can the given to those that actually need it rather than it being wasted on unimaginable amounts of bureaucracy.

Everything matters. Every bit.

Originally Posted by Peterkro

It may be that I missed your post but could you point me to where these figures come from?

Jon Snow on Channel 4 news for the 23k vs. 400 military procurement figure.

http://www.defencemanagement.com/new...y.asp?id=15670 for the bulbs.

But my point isn't about those specific examples above though, it's more the culture in the public sector that allows this to occur, it's endemic within the NHS, local authorities, education.

If I run a business like that… I go bust. I don't have the luxury of increasing taxes, or borrowing more money to cover a badly run business. The public sector should be no different.

Originally Posted by RSL

That's not a definition of efficiency.

Never claimed it was. They are however clear examples of inefficiency. And I'm sorry if that "reality conflicts with your ideology" (which is what by the way? That the public sector is a model of efficiency?).

Actually… I'm not sorry… don't care frankly.

Originally Posted by RSL

Let's see, less people in a hospital means longer hours, which induces more human error. Oops, that contradicts your later example of efficiency.

Now that is classic public sector thinking right there.

And you're forgetting (or ignoring, it's really hard to tell) the flaws in your example above.

And no it doesn't contradict my example of efficiency at all.

Originally Posted by RSL

Let me give you another one which I only recently heard of. In Germany, Munich is a notoriously expensive city, whilst Berlin is notoriously cheap. Yet water costs 50% more in Berlin than in Munich. Guess what? In Munich water is administered by the city, whilst it is private in Berlin.

Berliner Wasserbetriebe is a public institution, public-private partnership actually, 50.1 percent public, technically making it a public company, though not a wholly owned one.

Originally Posted by RSL

What these examples clearly show is that for some things the public sector delivers the goods much better than the private sector.

I don't disagree with you.

I'm actually all for the utilities to be state owned and operated. Though just not like how they were run before. You know, standpipes and blackouts.

[Peterkro]

Originally Posted by iGav

A small proportion of the public, and presented in a way that masks the true monetary figure that people would be able to relate. I've read figures that have suggested the benefit fraud is potentially as high as £5.5 billion, regardless and for obvious reasons, it's certainly higher than 0.7 but neither figure is an acceptable amount, when that money could be put to better use, like in the example I gave.

The .7% is the governments own figure and the £5.5 billion is I believe the combined figure for incorrect payments plus fraud and no mention is usually made to the £12 billion which people are fully entitled to which is not claimed

Originally Posted by iGav

Of course there's an argument to be made, that if you only need 400 rather than 23,700, then those 400 people could be paid a better salary (of course I'm aware that's an extreme example, but the point stands). Essentially why employ 2 people to do a job when 1 is sufficient to fulfil a particular role.

We should be mindful not to automatically equate public sector to low pay, research by the Office for National Statistics suggest that, public sector pay is higher than that of the private sector and that the gap is widening.



I do not disagree with you, however if the money that is raised is wasted in an inefficient public sector, it's unfair to you, it's unfair to me, it's unfair to the people that do need the help.

Personally I fail to see how addressing public sector inefficiency is going to negatively impact the poorest in society. There's an overwhelmingly strong argument to be made, that if such inefficiencies were addressed, that the tax and benefits system were simplified (the real elephant in the room), then you don't need as many people to administer and manage the system, that along with other efficiency savings means more help can the given to those that actually need it rather than it being wasted on unimaginable amounts of bureaucracy.

Everything matters. Every bit.



Jon Snow on Channel 4 news for the 23k vs. 400 military procurement figure.

http://www.defencemanagement.com/new...y.asp?id=15670 for the bulbs.

But my point isn't about those specific examples above though, it's more the culture in the public sector that allows this to occur, it's endemic within the NHS, local authorities, education.

If I run a business like that… I go bust. I don't have the luxury of increasing taxes, or borrowing more money to cover a badly run business. The public sector should be no different.

I don't deny there are vast inefficiencies in the public sector (and in the private sector too of course) I have no knowledge of the case you refer to but I think military procurement and the military budget itself are areas where big savings can be made.I do have some knowledge of the NHS in particular and it is going through staggering difficulties but aiming at the staff (i.e. workers ) is the wrong target in general they are being worked off their feet.The real target should be the management and the politicians who are wasting money and pouring it into the pockets of private investors on a huge scale.PFI for instance what a complete cock-up both the Tories and Labour should be held to account for that.The idea that private is good public bad is frankly absurd.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by iGav

I've read figures that have suggested the benefit fraud is potentially as high as £5.5 billion, regardless and for obvious reasons, it's certainly higher than 0.7 but neither figure is an acceptable amount, when that money could be put to better use, like in the example I gave.

Do you have a source for these claims.

Originally Posted by iGav

Now that is classic public sector thinking right there.

Not really, if you do any job that is actually challenging the number of hours of solid work you can efficiently complete can be pretty low. A ~40 hour week is usually about whats sensibly achievable by a given worker. If this wasn't the case the 35 hour week in France would have sent their economy straight of the deep end - and it didn't.

[sim667]

Originally Posted by iGav

Ah, the old teachers and nurses argument.

You mean the same teachers that were incredulous at being expected to retire at 65 and then 67 like everyone else? The same teachers that only work 195 days per year (though they are expected to "do some work during their holidays") the same teachers that enjoy the second largest public sector pension scheme in the country? Probably not the best example of hard workers really.
.

Im a teacher and you've got some serious misconceptions.

Remember teachers salaries are low, which is why the pension is good. The government decided to renege on their contractual agreement over our pension schemes, thats what enraged teachers.

And actually during term time, I get paid for 7 hours a week for teaching, by the time I've provided all the support for students outside of my paid teaching hours I work as a teacher closer to 12 hours a week, by the time I've done all my prep and marking for those lesson, we're talking 16 hours a week...... remember all of that overtime is unpaid and on top of my second job that I do alongside teaching. Dont forget, we teach, we provide pastoral care, we resolve quite serious situations, have to deal with students on mental health problems, safeguard students, have strict training regimes, are often expected to pay for our own teaching materials, and do all the statistic crap that is demanded off us by councils.

So if you want to sit there and try and justify why teachers are lazy because they get long holidays and a good pension, when infact most of them work well over the standard working hours during term time (my boss pulls a 70-80 hour week most weeks) then your going to lose this argument. As far as Im concerned anyone who sits at a desk pushing paperwork around filing cabinets 35 hours a week has it easy.

Would I quit teaching? Not right now, cus at least I still get to go home in the knowledge each day that I've helped someone improve themself, or learn something, a much more satisfying feeling than being a corporate whore in a suit selling products that dont physically exist.

Moron.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by sim667

Im a teacher and you've got some serious misconceptions.

Remember teachers salaries are low, which is why the pension is good. The government decided to renege on their contractual agreement over our pension schemes, thats what enraged teachers.

And actually during term time, I get paid for 7 hours a week for teaching, by the time I've provided all the support for students outside of my paid teaching hours I work as a teacher closer to 12 hours a week, by the time I've done all my prep and marking for those lesson, we're talking 16 hours a week...... remember all of that overtime is unpaid and on top of my second job that I do alongside teaching. Dont forget, we teach, we provide pastoral care, we resolve quite serious situations, have to deal with students on mental health problems, safeguard students, have strict training regimes, are often expected to pay for our own teaching materials, and do all the statistic crap that is demanded off us by councils.

So if you want to sit there and try and justify why teachers are lazy because they get long holidays and a good pension, when infact most of them work well over the standard working hours during term time (my boss pulls a 70-80 hour week most weeks) then your going to lose this argument. As far as Im concerned anyone who sits at a desk pushing paperwork around filing cabinets 35 hours a week has it easy.

Would I quit teaching? Not right now, cus at least I still get to go home in the knowledge each day that I've helped someone improve themself, or learn something, a much more satisfying feeling than being a corporate whore in a suit selling products that dont physically exist.

Moron.

If any criticism is due it's that you do too many hours to be effective.

[Happybunny]

Originally Posted by sim667

Im a teacher and you've got some serious misconceptions.

Remember teachers salaries are low, which is why the pension is good. The government decided to renege on their contractual agreement over our pension schemes, thats what enraged teachers.

And actually during term time, I get paid for 7 hours a week for teaching, by the time I've provided all the support for students outside of my paid teaching hours I work as a teacher closer to 12 hours a week, by the time I've done all my prep and marking for those lesson, we're talking 16 hours a week...... remember all of that overtime is unpaid and on top of my second job that I do alongside teaching. Dont forget, we teach, we provide pastoral care, we resolve quite serious situations, have to deal with students on mental health problems, safeguard students, have strict training regimes, are often expected to pay for our own teaching materials, and do all the statistic crap that is demanded off us by councils.

So if you want to sit there and try and justify why teachers are lazy because they get long holidays and a good pension, when infact most of them work well over the standard working hours during term time (my boss pulls a 70-80 hour week most weeks) then your going to lose this argument. As far as Im concerned anyone who sits at a desk pushing paperwork around filing cabinets 35 hours a week has it easy.

Would I quit teaching? Not right now, cus at least I still get to go home in the knowledge each day that I've helped someone improve themself, or learn something, a much more satisfying feeling than being a corporate whore in a suit selling products that dont physically exist.

Moron.

While I live in a totally different country much of what you say is true here as well.
Motivated teachers are essential to the future generations, the general public only sees you standing before the class, but all of the back room stuff that's not counted as work.
The paper work that is now required just to do your job, has in fact become a job in it's self.

You are the last of a dying breed where money is not the only motivation to do a first class job.

[sim667]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

If any criticism is due it's that you do too many hours to be effective.

Unfortunately teaching jobs dont revolve around how many hours you've done, its whether your achievement and rentention rates are high enough and whether your paperwork is up to date.

[fat jez]

never mind.

[NT1440]

Originally Posted by zioxide

Until you fix the system to where people can work a minimum wage job and actually make a living wage instead of working for such a low wage that it's borderline slave labor this kind of thing will keep on happening.

And he sticks the landing!

Thats exactly it.